The Technomancer

The measured dataset for The Technomancer (Action RPG, released June 27, 2016) with an Intel Core i5-9400 and an AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT spans four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) and three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160). The minimum recorded average is 43 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the maximum is 174 FPS at 1080p Low. The pairing holds a combo rank of 1140 out of 3696 tested combinations, placing it ahead of roughly two-thirds of the pool. The CPU sits at the 47th percentile and the GPU at the 55th percentile of their respective global pools, indicating a mid-to-upper position for both.

Settings Recommendations

The Medium preset stands out as the most consistent setting in this measurement set. It is the only preset with recorded minimum and maximum FPS data at every resolution, and it delivers the highest average among the 4K rows (64 FPS) while also surpassing High at the same resolution. A comparison of the four presets across resolutions shows that Medium outperforms High at each step: at 1080p Medium scores 158 FPS versus High’s 150; at 1440p Medium is 117 versus High’s 100; at 4K Medium is 64 versus High’s 55. This non-hierarchical ordering suggests that the High preset is either more demanding than its label implies or sample variance in the measured run placed it below Medium.

For users who want maximum speed, the Low preset frequently appears at the top: 174 FPS at 1080p, 151 FPS at 1440p, and 83 FPS at 4K. But Low sacrifices visual fidelity per its position in the preset stack. The Ultra preset is the heaviest, giving 119 FPS at 1080p, 78 at 1440p, and only 43 at 4K. While 1440p Ultra still stays above 60 FPS, 4K Ultra is below the festive threshold.

Given the balance of frame rate and the limited number of rows, the most usable option appears to be Medium. The 1080p Medium’s 158 FPS is well above 60, the 1440p Medium’s 117 FPS is very fluid, and the 4K Medium’s 64 FPS retains playability. Additionally, the Medium preset had the only min/max measurements docked to it: 1080p min/max 135–182, 1440p min/max 99–134, and 4K min/max 55–74. This allows for a rebound cascade and gives a more realistic impression of a frame-time behavior.

The data does not include a “Recommended” tag, so the choice is subjective, but for users who want the highest sustained frame rate across all resolutions, Medium is the default anchor. Users prioritizing 1080p sharpness can consider High (rising in 150 FPS) or Ultra (119 FPS), both of which remain far above 60. But if the primary ,parse is the present whole of resolution, Medium still sways above 60 at both 1440p and 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The recorded position of this CPU+GPU pair in The Technomancer is rank 1140 out of 3690 . That translates to a location—the lower the rank number, the better? The data set includes measured combos from the benchmark database, so rank 1140 is higher than 2550 other measured configurations. The situ is ambiguous; the lower the number of rank, the stronger the combo. So this places in the top ~31% of the entire test group. It does not reach the absolute top percentile, meaning it is not among the elite pairs, but it remains in the upper half by a clear margin.

Looking at the individual components, the CPU decays at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, which is almost the median (the Cinescore avgBenchmarkScore = 2254). The i5-9400’s average benchmark score is 2254, which arena nearly identical to its nearest rivals Intel Core i7-1069HG7 (avg score 2259) and Intel Core i5-10700U (2248). The delta percentages between these near rivals is small: -0.2% and +0.3% respectively, so the CPU is a dead center in its segment.

On the GPU side, the RX 9070 XT’s percentile is 55, slightly above the midpoint. Its average benchmark score is listed in the database as 13543. The nearest rival GPU is the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (avg score 13536, delta +0.1%) and NVIDIA Guru GeForce GTX 570 (13515, +0.2%), indicating that in the broader GPU pattern, the 9070 XT falls into a cluster of cards that are close to each other on this scale. This seems oddly modest for a modern card, but the rank is measured only in the context of this game.

The combination rank thus reflects both the upper-half of CPU and the slightly-above-midline of GPU, resulting in a top-zero. It suggests that the game itself is not heavily modded, so the modern RTX-compatible card does not push the overall score into the top percentile. The rank gives a direct sense whether this combo is a suitable node for this specific game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is a current-generation card from the RX 9000 series, based on the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture. It utilises a 16 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 256-bit bus, with a memory control of 644.6 GB/s. Clock speeds present in the dataset: the base clock is 1660 MHz, the game clock (a typical sustained load) is 2400 MHz, and the boost clock instantly ascends to 2970 MHz. The TDP is 304 W, and the required PSU is 700 W. The GPU was launched with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. Integrated within the die are 4096 shader units, 256 texture units, 128 ROPs, and 64 RT cores, together delivering 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 work. Pixel and texture throughput are rated at 380.2 GPixel/s and 760.3 GTexel/s, respectively. The card also supports PCIe 5.0 x16 and DirectX 12 Ultimate.

In the context of The Technomancer, the GPU has an enormous memory capacity for a 2016 release (the game was released on 2016-06-27). The high 16 GB buffer is unlikely to be stressed and means VRAM is not a bottleneck at any resolution. The massive bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s should also facilitate texture loads. The gameplay FPS shows a set of distinct scaling patterns, which point to the GPU as the primary limiting factor when resolution climbs. The most indicative is the 4K preset: - Medium produces 43, Unbiggest, 4K Ultra at 43 FPS is low. That is their own bound by compute, not by VRAM.

With such numbers the card can handle 1080p Ultra at 119 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 78 FPS, but only 4K Ultra at 43 FPS. For a card of this thermal size, the 4K result is lower than the headline performance of other titles, but overall the GPU remains capable. The measured settings show that 4K→FPS drops by more than half compared to 1080. As this is an AAA2016 title, these numbers are consistent with the raw fill rate limits: 4K requires 8.3 megapixels per frame, twice the density of 1440p — that is exactly where the card hits the geese.

The least filtered measurements: the 4K Low averages 83 FPS, which is a high cap but actually lower than 1440p Low (151) and 1080p Low (174). The gap from 4K Low to 1440p Low is a drop of 68 FPS, and from 1440p Low to 1080p Low is another 23 FPS, indicating that pixel load breaks scaling. A GPU with substantial teeth would normally scale better, but this game is old and may be CPU-bound at low settings.

Meas ured FPS Breakdown

• 1920x1080: Low 174, Medium 158 (min 135, max 182), High 150, Ultra 119. The Low is the fastest, Ultra is the slowest. Medium exceeds High by 8 FPS. The Median has a variable spread of 47 frames between min and max.
• 2560x1440: Low 151, Medium 117 (min 99, max 134), High 100, Ultra 78. Again, Medium is faster than High. The Ultra preset at a lower than 100 average, while Low remains the normalized peak. The Medium row shows a spread of 35 frames.
• 3840x2160: Low 83, Medium 64 (min 55, max 74), High 55, Ultra 43. Here Medium is slightly faster than High, and the gap between Medium and Low is 19 FPS. The minimum and maximum values for Medium (55 – 74) go all the way up to the High.

The measured rows are all “average,” so any min/max values only exist for the Medium preset. This tendency of the Medium to be “the headliner” is consistent with the possibility that the game’s presets don’t align linearly visual quality on, maybe Medium taps into special coding.

Resolution Scaling

Using the Medium preset as a stable reference, the frame numbers drop from 158 at 1080p, to 117 at 1440p, to 64 at 4K. That is a drop of 88 FPS total from 1080p to 4K, a 34.7% drop from 1440p to 4K (but percentages, I won’t calculate in words). It's enough to say that 4K delivers not even half of the 1080p numbers — 64 is only 40% of 158, but I can state it in raw terms: a plain div but 158 minus 94 equals 64. Or that a quarter of the pixels? the scaling is not 1:4. If the game was purely pixel-bound, 1080p to 4K (twice the body length) would produce around one-quarter of the FPS, but instead we see four times the pixel