The Technomancer

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the Intel Arc B570 ranks 2256 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the bottom 20% of all configurations. This is a middling-to-low result for a system built around hardware that individually sits in respectable percentiles: the CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU lands in the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. The gap between component-level standing and game-level ranking suggests that this particular title does not scale well with the strengths of either part.

Benchmark results indicate that the combo's percentile rank is driven primarily by the GPU's modest performance ceiling in this game. The Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20556 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (avg score 20534) and within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A750 (avg score 20582). However, those comparisons are synthetic averages; in The Technomancer specifically, the measured FPS figures reveal a system that struggles to maintain playable framerates at higher resolutions and settings. The CPU, by contrast, shows no such weakness — its average benchmark score of 32279 puts it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233) and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226).

The data shows that this combo's low rank stems from a GPU bottleneck that becomes severe as resolution climbs. At 1080p, the system delivers solid results, but at 4K, it falls below 30 FPS on every preset except Low. For a game released in 2016, this is a disappointing outcome — the hardware is modern (both components were released in 2024 or later), yet the Arc B570's architecture appears to have limited headroom in this legacy title. The combo's rank of 2256 out of 2825 means roughly 20% of tested configurations perform worse, but it also means about 80% perform better, which is a poor showing for a system with a 10-core CPU and a 10GB GPU.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of which settings presets deliver the best experience. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 121 FPS average, which is the highest framerate recorded for any resolution and settings combination. Medium drops to 93 FPS average (with a minimum of 79 and maximum of 107), High comes in at 80 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 62 FPS. For competitive or fast-paced play, the Low preset at 1080p is optimal, but for visual fidelity, High at 1080p (80 FPS) offers a strong balance — it maintains smooth framerates while providing substantially better graphical quality than Low.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts. The Low preset delivers 79 FPS average, which is playable, but Medium yields 61 FPS (with a minimum of 52 and maximum of 70) — still comfortably above 60 FPS and visually superior. High at 1440p averages 52 FPS, which is acceptable for slower-paced Action RPG gameplay but may feel less fluid during combat sequences. Ultra at 1440p averages 41 FPS, which is borderline. For 1440p gaming, the Medium preset is the sweet spot: it maintains a 61 FPS average and never dips below 52 FPS, ensuring consistent performance.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset averages 44 FPS, which is the only 4K option that stays above 40 FPS. Medium averages 33 FPS (with a minimum of 28 and maximum of 39), High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold, and even 30 FPS is only achievable on Low. For 4K, the Low preset is the only reasonable choice if framerate stability matters — the Medium preset's 28 FPS minimum risks noticeable stutter. However, players seeking 4K visuals with acceptable smoothness should accept that this combo cannot deliver high settings at that resolution.

The data suggests that the best overall experience is 1080p High (80 FPS) for most users, as it combines strong visual quality with framerates that leave ample headroom above 60 FPS. For those prioritizing maximum smoothness, 1080p Low (121 FPS) doubles the refresh-rate potential. At 1440p, Medium (61 FPS) is the recommended compromise between resolution and performance, while 4K should only be attempted on Low (44 FPS) — and even then, the experience will be suboptimal.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals where the bottleneck lies. At High settings, the average framerate falls from 80 FPS at 1080p to 52 FPS at 1440p (a 35% reduction) and then to 29 FPS at 4K (a 64% reduction from 1080p). This steep decline as resolution increases is a classic sign of a GPU-limited system — the CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU cannot keep up with the increasing pixel count. The Arc B570's 380.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply insufficient for 4K rendering in this title.

The scaling pattern across presets confirms this. At Low settings, the framerate drops from 121 FPS at 1080p to 79 FPS at 1440p (35% reduction) and then to 44 FPS at 4K (64% reduction from 1080p). The consistent percentage drops across different presets indicate that resolution scaling is the dominant factor, not settings complexity. Even at Low, where the GPU has less work per pixel, the 4K framerate is less than half of the 1080p result. This suggests the GPU's fill-rate and memory bandwidth limits are being hit regardless of preset.

The CPU role in this scaling is minimal. The Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and its multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21645) is strong enough that it should not bottleneck at any resolution. The fact that framerates scale almost linearly with pixel count — roughly halving from 1080p to 4K — indicates the GPU is the limiting component at all settings. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see similar framerates across resolutions, particularly at Low settings where the GPU load is reduced.

The data also shows diminishing returns at 4K: the jump from Medium (33 FPS) to High (29 FPS) costs 4 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra (22 FPS) costs 7 FPS. This non-linear degradation at 4K suggests the GPU's memory subsystem (10GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus) is overwhelmed by the combination of high resolution and high settings. At 1080p, the same settings jumps cost 13 FPS (Medium to High: 93 to 80) and 18 FPS (High to Ultra: 80 to 62), which is a more gradual decline — further evidence that 4K pushes the GPU past its efficient operating range.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this hardware in The Technomancer?

A: The measured data shows 1080p High (80 FPS average) offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. For maximum framerate, 1080p Low hits 121 FPS average. At 1440p, Medium (61 FPS) is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS. At 4K, only Low (44 FPS) exceeds 40 FPS.

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in The Technomancer?

A: Barely. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 44, but Medium drops to 33 FPS (minimum 28), High to 29 FPS, and Ultra to 22 FPS. None of these achieve 60 FPS, and only Low avoids sub-30 FPS territory. The GPU's 10GB VRAM and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for consistent 4K performance.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B570's average benchmark score is 20556. It sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534) and within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A750 (20582). It is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480) and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662).

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-14400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-14400F's average benchmark score is 32279. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233) and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226). It is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354) and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800H (32121).

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking among tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2256 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the 21st percentile. This is notably lower than the individual component percentiles (CPU at 83rd, GPU at 65th), indicating poor game-specific optimization or a significant bottleneck.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The framerate scales strongly with resolution (121 FPS at 1080p Low vs 44 FPS at 4K Low), which is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's strong multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21645) suggests it is not the constraint.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is the primary performance limiter in this combination for The Technomancer. Its architecture is Xe2-HPG on a 5 nm process, built by TSMC, with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. The GPU has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation pipelines, with a pixel rate of 200.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s. These specifications translate to a theoretical FP32 performance of 11.52 TFLOPS, which is modest for modern gaming but should be adequate for a 2016 title — yet the measured results show otherwise.

The memory subsystem is a likely culprit. The GPU has 10GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s bandwidth. While 10GB is a reasonable capacity, the 160-bit bus width is narrow compared to modern mid-range GPUs, and the 380.0 GB/s bandwidth appears insufficient for 4K rendering in this game. The memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), which is standard for GDDR6, but the bus width limits aggregate throughput. At 4K Ultra, the framerate collapses to 22 FPS average, suggesting the memory bandwidth is saturated.

The GPU's clock behavior is unusual: both base and boost clocks are 2500 MHz, meaning there is no dynamic clock headroom. This fixed clock rate, combined with the 150W TDP, indicates the card runs at a constant power limit. The lack of boost variation may explain why performance scales so predictably with resolution — the GPU cannot temporarily increase clocks to handle spikes in demand. The PassMark G3D score of 14195 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2649 reflect this modest performance level.

The GPU's percentile ranking (65th among all GPUs) is respectable, but its nearest rivals in synthetic tests — the RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% ahead) and Arc A750 (0.1% behind) — are not high-end desktop parts. The Arc B570's PassMark DirectX 11 score of 118 and DirectX 12 score of 72 are notably low, which may indicate driver overhead or architectural inefficiencies in legacy DirectX titles like The Technomancer. The GPU's 18 ray tracing cores are irrelevant for this game, and its 10GB VRAM is not the constraint at 1080p (where performance is adequate) but becomes a factor at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F provides ample compute headroom for this game, and benchmark results indicate it is not the bottleneck. This CPU has 10 cores and 16 threads, a configuration that mixes performance and efficiency cores (P-cores and E-cores) under the Raptor Lake architecture. The base clock is 2.50 GHz, boosting to 4.70 GHz on a single core, with a 65W TDP that keeps thermals manageable. The 20MB shared L3 cache and 1.25MB L2 cache per core provide sufficient data locality for game logic, while the 80KB L1 cache per core handles frequent accesses.

Synthetic benchmarks confirm the CPU's strength. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055 indicate strong all-around performance. The Geekbench multicore score of 11268 and single-core score of 2058 reinforce this. The PassMark multithread score of 25470 and single-thread score of 3701 (listed twice as both "single_thread" and "singlethread") show consistency. The CPU's percentile ranking of 83rd among all processors means it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs, including the i9-11900 (which it beats by 0.2%) and the i7-12800H (which it beats by 0.5%).

In The Technomancer specifically, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics calculations. The game is an Action RPG from 2016, which typically has modest CPU demands compared to modern titles. The i5-14400F's 10 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for this workload. The fact that framerates scale linearly with resolution (rather than remaining flat, which would indicate CPU bottleneck) proves the CPU is not limiting. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 121 FPS, which is a high framerate that would expose CPU limitations if they existed — the fact that it hits this number indicates the CPU can handle even the most GPU-light scenarios.

The CPU's memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel configuration, provides flexibility, though the game's performance is unlikely to be memory-bandwidth sensitive. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes ensures the GPU has full bandwidth available, eliminating any interconnect bottleneck. The CPU's 65W TDP and active production status mean it is a reliable, modern part that will not hold back the Arc B570 in this title — the GPU simply needs more memory bandwidth for higher resolutions.