The Technomancer

The Technomancer, an Action RPG released in June 2016, is measured here on a system pairing an Intel Core i7-12700K with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080. The data covers twelve run configurations: four detail presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at three resolutions (1920×1080, 2560×1440, 3840×2160). This page also reports a combined ranking of the tested combo against the full benchmark database and interprets the measured frame rates in terms of CPU and GPU loading.

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rates show that the highest reliable experience depends heavily on the chosen resolution. At 1920×1080, the Ultra preset delivers 152 average FPS, while Medium reaches 229 average FPS with a 194 minimum, and Low achieves 288 average FPS. The data suggests that Ultra is fully playable at this resolution, but players targeting high refresh rates (above 240 Hz) would prefer Medium, which offers the best balance of visual quality and frame headroom. At 2560×1440, the Medium preset delivers 149 average FPS, while Ultra maintains 100 average FPS – the Ultra preset remains smooth even on a 120 Hz display. For 4K (3840×2160) output, the Ultra preset falls to 55 average FPS, while Medium provides 82 average FPS with a 70 minimum frame rate. The High preset at 4K yields 70 average FPS, which is playable but below the generally accepted 60 FPS threshold for a fluid action-RPG experience. Consequently, the data recommends Medium as the highest a reliable preset overall: across all resolutions, it is the only preset that remains above 60 FPS at the UHD boundary, with minimum FPS of 70, 127, and 194 at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p respectively. Players with lower refresh-rate displays (e.g., 60 Hz) could consider High at 4K or Ultra at 1440p, as those configurations still produce frame rates above the refresh regardless of the spike patterns.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700K is a 12-core, 20-thread processor from the Intel Core 12th Gen family, based on the Alder Lake architecture and manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. The base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, and the cache structure includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 25 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU features an integrated UHD Graphics 770 GPU but is paired here with a discrete NVIDIA graphics card. The measured frame rates in The Technomancer are heavily influenced by this processor. At 1920×1080, the CPU’s single-thread strength is reflected in the compute scores: the Cinebench R23 single-core scores is 1850.5, while the single-thread 3DMark test returns 1043. These high per-thread capabilities help push the average FPS to 288 at Low settings, where the graphics card is not saturated. The CPU’s 20 threads also contribute to high overall throughput, as indicated by an aggregate 3DMark max-threads score of 9979 and a CINEBENCH R23 multi-core score of 19784. With a TDP of 125 W, its power efficiency is sufficient for gaming workloads. Its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark ranking include the Intel Core i5-13600T (delta -0.1%), Intel Core i7-12700KF (delta -0.2%), Intel Core i7-13700T (delta -0.3%), and Intel Core 5 213PE (delta -0.4%), placing the i7-12700K within 0.4% of those alternatives based on average benchmark scores. At 1080p and 1440p, the strong single-thread capability of the i7-12700K (evidenced by the 1850.5- point Cinebench R23 result) drives each preset to its peak frame rate; the improvement from Low to High at 1080p is a 100 FPS drop, while CPU overhead still allows 152 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, the role shifts: even the Low preset – which yields 107 FPS – is not bottlenecked by the CPU, but the High and Medium presets settle at 70 and 82 FPS respectively, pointing to a reduced reliance on the eight cores. The launch MSRP of the processor is $409. Across the measured results, the CPU never fully limits performance, as the highest frame rates at Low settings scale predictably with the graphics preset. The difference between the 3Dmark 16-thread score (9276) and max-threads (9979) shows that the CPU handles all twenty threads efficiently, so the action game’s logic is not starving, even when the GPU is idle at low resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the chosen graphics card, based on the Ada Lovelace architecture and manufactured on a 5nm TSMC process. It is equipped with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. The base clock is 2205 MHz with a boost clock of 2505 MHz. The GPU includes 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, plus 76 ray-tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The card’s compute capability is marked by its FP32 throughput of 48.74 TFLOPS and texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s, which substantially exceed the needs of a 2016 title like The Technomancer. The GPU’s internal memory clock runs at 1400 MHz with a 22.4 Gbps effective rate. In practice, the measured FPS at 4K demonstrate the GPU as the primary scaling component: at 4K the Ultra preset averages 55 FPS, while High reaches 70, Medium 82, and Low 107. Those changes are directly attributable to the increased pixel workload at 3840×2160. At 2560×1440, the GPU still manages all presets well; the Ultra preset holds at 100 FPS, and at 1080p Low reaches 288 FPS. The GPU’s 86th percentile among all graphics cards reinforces its high-end placement. Its nearest rivals: the RTX 4080 SUPER (avg score 54209, delta +0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828, delta -1.1%), the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, delta -2.6%), and the Radeon 8060S (55757, delta -2.7%) – demonstrating that this 4080 sits within a few percentage points of the top-tier alternatives. The GPU’s TDP is 320 W; the recommended PSU is 700 W. The launch MSRP of the RTX 4080 is 1,199 USD. The card’s 16 GB frame buffer is far beyond what The Technomancer needs at the present settings, so the 4K at Low and Medium results are not limited by memory capacity but rather by raw shader throughput and pixel fill.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,696 total tested combos in the benchmark database, this CPU+GPU configuration ranks 250th overall for The Technomancer. The percentile, based on the performance measurements, places it in the top 9th of all configurations (the rank is 250 of 3696). This high rank is consistent with the CPU’s 84th percentile and GPU’s 86th percentile in their respective standalone benchmarks. The combination of a top-15% CPU with a top-14% GPU should deliver good headroom for a 2016 action RPG. The rank of 250 reflects that a small set of newer or more powerful parts (e.g., RTX 4080 SUPER, which only differs by 0.1% in average score, or CPUs like the i7-13700T) may outdo this pairing, but they do so within a fraction of a percent. Since the game’s engine is relatively CPU-light, the i7-12700K sufficient, while the RTX 4080’s modern memory bandwidth and compute capacity do not become fully stretched at typical 1440p, and only start to max out at 4K Ultra. In the settings that produce extreme frame rates (Low, 1080p: 288 FPS), the combination proves that both components have above -avgScoreds; however, in the near most demanding scenario (4K Ultra), the FPS drops to 55, showing that the combo’s raw power is necessary to counter 4K and that the GPU marks a clear ceiling. For a title from 2016, this pairing provides a large headroom over the minimal requirements, and the 250th rank out of 3696 means fewer than 7% of tested combos are faster in average frame is.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS reported for this configuration in The Technomancer?

A: The best number recorded is 288 FPS at 1920×1080 on the Low preset.

Q: Does the game maintain 60 FPS at 4K when using the Ultra preset?

A: No, the Ultra preset at 4K drops to 55 average FPS, which falls below 60 FPS.

Q: Which preset produces the frame rate most stable when setting a monitor with a 120 Hz refresh rate at 2560×1440?

A: Medium preset averages 149 FPS with a 127 FPS minimum, which is comfortably above a 120 FPS target. The Ultra preset, at 100 average FPS, also reaches a consistent 100 FPS but barely falls short of heading above 120. Thus Medium provides the best margin.

Q: What is the difference between the 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra average FPS?

A: The 1080p Ultra averages 152 FPS, while 4K Ultra averages 55 FPS, a difference of 97 FPS.

Q: How does this combo compare to the fastest CPU and GPU alternatives listed?

A: The RTX 4080 is almost exactly the same as the RTX 4080 SUPER (delta +0.1%), and the CPU near multiple – e.g., the i5-13600T is only 0.1% behind the i7-12700K. Both CPU and GPU are within 0.4% or less of their nearest rivals.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more likely to be the limiting factor at 4K with Medium settings?

A: The GPU is the primary limiter: 4K Medium returns 82 FPS with a average fidelity, while the Low preset pushes 107 FPS; a 4K Ultra claims 55 FPS. The CPU’s productivity scores (e.g., in Cinebench R23, 19784 multi-core) suggest it easily keeps up at these frame counts.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured average FPS (with minimum and maximum where recorded) for each settings and resolution combination is listed below.

| Resolution | Settings | Average | Minimum | Maximum |

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

| 1920×1080 | Low | 288 | - | - |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 229 | 194 | 263 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 195 | - | - |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 152 | - | - |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 195 | - | - |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 149 | 127 | 172 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 128 | - | - |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 100 | - | - |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 107 | - | - |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 82 | 70 | 94 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 70 | - | - |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 55 | - | - |

For the Medium preset, the minimum FPS was captured; it shows a minimum of 70 at 4K, 127 at 1440p, and 194 at 1080p, indicating that the Medium setting offers a controlled frame-time variance even under load. The Ultra presets have no minimum in the dataset, so the averages of 55, 100, and 152 provide the main point of reference.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160 clearly reveals which major component(part) is limiting the system. At the Low setting, average FPS drops from 288 to 195 to 107 (1080p → 1440p → 4K). The drop from 1440p to 4K (195 to 107) is approximately a 45% loss, whereas between 1080 and 1440p the loss is roughly 32%, indicating that raster load grows quickly with pixel count. Across the same three resolutions, the Medium preset goes from 229 to 149 to 82, a series of drops of 80 then 67 FPS. High settings progress from 195 to 128 to 70, and Ultra from 152 to 100 to 55. Examining the ratios, the total 1080p → 4K reduction is around 70%. This is approximate: the numbers are directly as measured, so the higher settings show a larger relative decline because the GPU is doing more per pixel. The CPU’s workload does not increase in dramatic proportions with resolution, as the 4K Low 107 FPS is still nearly twice the 4K Ultra 55 FPS. In every exception, the proportion between Medium and High (approximately a one-quarter reduction) is maintained across TV resolution, meaning the game engine has a consistent load cost for each extra effect level. The GPU uses all its 16 GB of GDDR6X and its 716.8 GB/s – a very predicated for a 2016 title – and the data indicate that the limiting factor is the combination compute plus enormous memory bandwidth rather than bandwidth itself. At 1080p Low, 288 FPS suggests that the CBC is not the bender: the frame rate ceiling at low resolution is likely set by the game engine’s draw call path (which scales with resolution and geometry). But across 4 queries, the FPS scaling is close to what we might expect a linear with the number of pixels: 1080p has 2.07 million pixels, 1440p has 3.68, and 4K 8.29; the actual FPS ratios (3072×2160 vs 1920×1080 in above average FPS) 71% for High, 68% for Medium, 69% for Low, and 67% for Ultra, illustrating the expected quadratical scaling of shading cost. The 4K Ultra 55FPS is the most severe drop among the presets and vividly indicates that the GPU is the effectively the slow point at resolution that stresses the latest high-end piece. Because the i7-12700K’s 5.0 GHz boost clock and 20 threads do not display limitations at any preset of low, no star evidence points to the power of the CPU for 4K; it is the GPU alone that pushes the 4080 to its point of contention.