The Technomancer

With the Intel Core i5-14600KF paired against the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT in The Technomancer, the measured performance lands at rank 2,741 out of 3,696 tested combinations. The CPU itself performs at the 90th percentile of all processors, while the GPU rests at only the 59th percentile. This mismatch – a high-end CPU with a mid-range GPU – is the story of this combo: the chip is far ahead of the card, and in this specific action RPG the Radeon becomes the primary limit.

The game was released on June 27, 2016, and the video card is from the Radeon RX 5000 series, an 8 GB GDDR6 part on a 256‑bit bus with 448 GB/s bandwidth and a boost clock of 1905 MHz. The CPU uses a Raptor Lake architecture, 14 cores, 20 threads, a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 5.30 GHz boost. These specifications and the measured frame rates together give a clear idea of what to expect from this combination.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured rank of 2,741 out of 3,696 means roughly 74% of tested combos perform better in The Technomancer. To put that in perspective, the CPU alone achieves a 90th percentile rank among all CPUs and scores an average benchmark of 49,394 points, while the GPU scores an average of 16,361 points and sits at 59th percentile. The gap is substantial. This CPU sits above nearly all CPUs the database tracks, yet the GPU is only slightly above the median. When the two are combined, the slower component dominates frame rate.

Looking at the closest rivals to the CPU, the average score delta is very small. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is within 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G within 0.4%, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 within 0.8%. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is 0.8% ahead. These scores come from general CPU benchmarks, not game-specific results, but they show the i5-14600KF is a heavyweight in raw processing. The GPU’s nearest rivals are also tightly packed: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is 0.1% behind, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 0.3% behind, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 0.3% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 0.9% behind. That tells us the GPU is not an outlier at its tier; it’s a typical mid-range card. The combo’s problem is that the CPU has far more to offer than the GPU can deliver, and this game, at least at the presented settings, does not use the extra P-core or thread headroom.

The measured data shows that at 1080p, the lowest CPU-heavy scenario, the system produces 91 FPS on High settings, while the same setting at 4K drops to 33 FPS. The card’s 8 GB frame buffer and 448 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient to maintain fluid frame rates at higher resolutions. The rank of 2,741 out of 3,696 tells you that many other owners of varying hardware achieve higher FPS in The Technomancer, and the reason often lies in a more balanced GPU. Because the CPU does not bottleneck at 1080p – it delivers 139 FPS on Low – the overall rank is dragged down by the GPU, not the Core i5.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset to play at 1920x1080?

A: Medium is the best balance. It yields an average of 107 FPS, with a minimum of 91 and a maximum of 123. High gives 91 FPS, Ultra 71, and Low 139, but Medium delivers a stable, comfortably high frame rate without sacrificing a lot of visual quality.

Q: Can this combo play at 2560x1440 smoothly?

A: Yes, but mostly on Medium. At 1440p Medium averages 70 FPS (min 59, max 80), while High is exactly 60 and Ultra 47. Low reaches 91 FPS, but visually it is inferior. For a consistent 60+ FPS experience, Medium is the only preset that comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS target.

Q: Is 4K viable with this pair?

A: Only the Low preset offers anything near 60 FPS, averaging 50 FPS. Medium drops to 38, High to 33, and Ultra to 26. Since 4K Low will look noticeably lower in quality, and the 4K monitor will still not achieve a locked 60, it is not a good experience. The data suggests that this cartridge is not suited for 4K.

Q: Does the CPU throttle the frame rate at any of the tested settings?

A: The CPU is rarely the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the frame rate is 139 FPS – far above any typical target – and it scales strongly with resolution and quality, which is typical of GPU-bound workloads. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,544 and Geekbench multi-core score of 17,085 place it among the top processors, and its 90th percentile confirms it is not holding back.

Q: What is the maximum FPS observed in any configuration?

A: The highest average FPS seen in the measured data is 139 FPS, attained at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. That is the absolute ceiling for this combo. The media preset at 1440p with Medium reaches a max of 80 FPS, and at 1080p Medium sees 123 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare with High at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, it drops from 91 FPS (High) to 71 FPS (Ultra) – a 22% decrease. With Medium at 107 and Low at 139, Ultra is not worth the visual gain over High‚ but it remains above the 60 FPS comfort zone.

Resolution Scaling

The three tested resolutions reveal a steep frame rate decline. At the High preset, 1080p yields 91 FPS, 1440p drops to 60 FPS, and 4K to 33 FPS. That is a drop of 34% from 1080 to 1440, and 45% from 1440 to 4K. The Medium preset shows the same pattern: 107 → 70 → 38, about a 35% and 46% reduction. The average frame rate goes from about 139 Low at 1080p to just 26 at 4K Ultra, confirming that the workload is primarily graphics-bound.

The scaling with resolution indicates that the RX 5700 XT’s memory interface and total bandwidth are the limiting factor. The CPU is 5.30 GHz and can feed many pixels per second, but the GPU’s 448 GB/s and 8 GB frame buffer must process each pixel. The steep slide with resolution is classic PCR bound scenario. At 1080p the CPU can run at 71 FPS on Ultra, but at 4K Ultra it cannot maintain 30. The scaling is steeper than what would be seen if the CPU were the bottleneck; a 1080p to 4K change (a 4× pixel difference) usually yields a larger drop if the GPU is the weak link.

The presence of a 1080p Low result of 139 FPS shows that the CPU has ample headroom. If the CPU were limited, the frame rate would be flat across resolutions and settings. The data demonstrates that this is a GPU-first system.

Settings Recommendations

For each resolution, the best compromise between visual fidelity and playability is clear:

• 1920x1080: Medium is the sweet spot. It gives an average of 107 FPS, a 91 minimum, and a 123 maximum, keeping the game responsive on any 60 Hz or even 144 Hz monitor. High is also acceptable at 91, but Medium adds 16 FPS. Ultra at 71 is still good, but the 36 FPS loss from Medium is not worth it.

• 2560x1440: Medium is the only setting that holds 70 FPS, with 59 as a floor. High is at exactly 60 FPS but offers no margin; a single busy scene will drop below 60. Low at 91 and Ultra at 47 are extremes. Choose Medium.

• 3840x2160: None of the four presets reach 60 FPS. Low is the highest, averaging 50 FPS, which is a barely playable experience with modest motion. Medium gets 38 and High 33; these are too low for action RPG combat. If you must use 4K, set to Low, but a 1440p monitor is the better partner.

The measured min/max values for the medium preset show stability: at 1080p the profile is 91–123 (average 107); at 1440p 59–80; at 4K 33–44. The variation stays in a tight range for each resolution, which suggests the GPU is consistently delivering near its limit rather than spiking or stuttering. That makes the Medium preset a sensible baseline.

Measured FPS Breakdown

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|-------------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 33 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 50 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 38 | 33 | 44 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 26 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | High | 60 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 91 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 70 | 59 | 80 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 47 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | High | 91 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 139 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 107 | 91 | 123 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 71 | – | – |

These numbers are the measured averages obtained from the database. Only the Medium preset recorded a full min/max range; the other rows only give the average. That does not mean they are any less trustworthy; they simply lack the same sampling depth. The pattern is unmistakable: the Radeon RX 5700 XT’s performance revolves around its 1080p and 1440p center, and only in the Low preset does 1440p approach the 91 FPS mark.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600K is an asymmetric 14-core, 20-thread processor with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 5.30 GHz. Designed for the Raptor Lake architecture, it uses a 10 nm process and fits on the Intel Socket 1700. In synthetic performance, its Cinebench R23 multi‑core score of 32,544 is extremely high, and its single‑core score of 4,594 is equally strong. Geekbench says it scores 17,085 multi‑core and 2,445 single‑core. The Passmark multi‑threaded result is 38,697 with a single‑core of 4,273.

However, in The Technomancer, the CPU’s vast thread resources are not fully exercised. A 2016 title like The Technomancer runs to a limited depth of parallelism; the majority workload is sent to the primary core. Even so, the i5‑14600K has enough single‑thread performance to drive 139 FPS at 1080p Low. That value is far above any display, so the CPU does not inhibit at that stage. As resolution climbs, the workload shifts to the graphics card, and the CPU waits.

The CPU’s high boost and the L3 cache (24 MB shared) give it plenty of headroom to feed the GPU, but the card’s 59th percentile shows that it is the consistent constraint. Data from the GPU itself, with a peak of 33 FPS at 4K High, suggests that the CPU is capable at least double that. In fact, at 4K Ultra the 26 FPS average is only about a 20% of the clock potential, further proof that the CPU is never the problem.

The launch MSRP of the CPU is $294, and the GPU had a launch MSRP of $399 – these two components belong to different performance classes in the overall market, and in The Technonomancer the cheaper GPU (relative to its peer group) is the one that needs upgrading to move the combo up the rank list.