The Technomancer

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-12700KF paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT lands at rank 687 out of 3696 tested combinations in The Technomancer. That places this combo in the top 18.6% of all tested systems, a strong showing for a game released in 2016. The data indicates this pairing sits comfortably in the upper tier, though it is not at the absolute pinnacle of performance.

The processor itself holds the 85th percentile when compared against all CPUs in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 35365 places it nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the Intel Core i7-13700T scores 35403 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i5-13600T scores 35305 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Core i7-12700K scores 35287 (0.2% lower). The Core i7-12700KF essentially matches its closest competitors, with deltas under one percent in either direction.

On the GPU side, the Radeon RX 7900 XT's average benchmark score of 13745 puts it at the 55th percentile among all graphics cards. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 660M (score 13812, 0.5% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (score 13821, 0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 570X (score 13871, 0.9% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (score 13543, 1.5% lower). The RX 7900 XT is effectively neck-and-neck with these alternatives in aggregate benchmarks, despite being a much larger and more power-hungry card in practice.

What makes this ranking particularly interesting is the gap between the CPU's strong percentile standing and the GPU's middling one. The processor is clearly a top-tier part, while the graphics card's aggregate score suggests it competes with far less exotic hardware. Yet the measured frame rates in this game tell a different story — one where the GPU dominates the outcome at higher resolutions and settings.

# FAQ

Q: How does this combo perform at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the combo achieves an average of 128 FPS. This is 36 FPS lower than High settings at the same resolution, showing a significant performance cost for the Ultra preset.

Q: What is the largest frame rate gap between settings at any resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the spread from Low to Ultra is 44 FPS — from 90 FPS on Low down to 46 FPS on Ultra. This is the widest gap across all tested resolutions, indicating that 4K resolution amplifies the cost of higher settings.

Q: Is the RX 7900 XT a bottleneck in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 251 FPS, but at 4K Low it drops to 90 FPS — a 64% reduction. This scaling pattern points to the graphics card being the primary constraint, especially as resolution increases.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its closest rival, the Core i7-12700K?

A: The Core i7-12700KF scores 35365 on average, while the Core i7-12700K scores 35287. This represents a 0.2% difference, putting the two effectively on par with each other in aggregate benchmarks.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 251, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only tested configuration that breaks the 250 FPS barrier.

Q: Does the GPU's 20 GB of VRAM matter for this game?

A: Given that The Technomancer is a 2016 title, the 20 GB VRAM allocation is far beyond what the game would require. The data shows no VRAM-related limitations even at 4K Ultra, where the combo still maintains 46 FPS.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is built on the Navi 31 chip using the RDNA 3.0 architecture. Its clock speeds are notable: a base clock of 1387 MHz, a boost clock of 2394 MHz, and a game clock of 2025 MHz. The memory runs at 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective speed, feeding a 320-bit bus that delivers 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration provides 20 GB of GDDR6 VRAM — an enormous amount for The Technomancer, a game that launched in 2016 with far more modest hardware requirements in mind.

The GPU's raw compute capabilities are substantial. It offers 5376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units. The pixel rate is 459.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 804.4 GTexel/s. Floating point performance reaches 51.48 TFLOPS for FP32 and 103.0 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The card also includes 84 ray tracing cores, though this game predates any meaningful ray tracing implementation.

The measured frame rates reveal how this GPU behaves under load. At 1080p, the card is rarely stressed: Low settings produce 251 FPS, Medium produces 193 FPS, High produces 164 FPS, and Ultra produces 128 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra represents a 49% performance drop, indicating that the GPU has ample headroom at this resolution. Moving to 1440p, the frame rates drop to 164 FPS on Low, 126 FPS on Medium, 108 FPS on High, and 84 FPS on Ultra — a 49% drop from Low to Ultra, similar to 1080p.

At 4K, the GPU's limits become apparent. Low settings yield 90 FPS, Medium yields 69 FPS, High yields 59 FPS, and Ultra drops to 46 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra here is also 49%, mirroring the pattern seen at lower resolutions. This consistency suggests the GPU is scaling predictably with settings, with each preset tier costing roughly the same relative performance regardless of resolution.

The 20 GB VRAM capacity is never a limiting factor in this game. Even at 4K Ultra, the highest demand configuration tested, the combo maintains playable frame rates without any indication of memory pressure. The bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s also appears more than sufficient for a title of this era.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a complete picture of performance. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 251 FPS, the highest figure recorded for any configuration in this dataset. Medium settings yield 193 FPS with a minimum of 164 FPS and a maximum of 222 FPS. High settings average 164 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 128 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down proportionally. Low settings average 164 FPS, Medium averages 126 FPS with a range of 107 to 145 FPS, High averages 108 FPS, and Ultra averages 84 FPS. The pattern shows a consistent step-down from Low to Ultra, with each preset tier costing roughly 20-25% performance.

At 3840x2160, the results show the GPU working harder. Low settings average 90 FPS, Medium averages 69 FPS with a range of 59 to 80 FPS, High averages 59 FPS, and Ultra averages 46 FPS. The minimum FPS recorded for 4K Medium is 59 FPS, which matches the average for 4K High — an interesting coincidence that suggests the minimum frame rate at Medium is equivalent to the average at High.

The only configurations with min/max data are the Medium presets at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range spans from 164 to 222 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it spans from 107 to 145 FPS. At 4K Medium, it spans from 59 to 80 FPS. This data shows that frame time consistency scales with resolution — the spread between minimum and maximum is proportionally similar across all three resolutions, suggesting stable performance characteristics.

# Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K reveals how the system's performance is constrained. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 251 FPS at 1080p to 164 FPS at 1440p (a 35% reduction), then to 90 FPS at 4K (another 45% reduction from 1440p). The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 64%.

At Medium settings, the progression goes from 193 FPS at 1080p to 126 FPS at 1440p (35% drop) to 69 FPS at 4K (45% drop from 1440p). The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 64%, identical to Low settings. At High settings, the figures are 164 FPS at 1080p, 108 FPS at 1440p (34% drop), and 59 FPS at 4K (45% drop from 1440p), for a total reduction of 64%.

Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 128 FPS at 1080p, 84 FPS at 1440p (34% drop), and 46 FPS at 4K (45% drop from 1440p). The total reduction from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is 64% as well. This consistency across all four settings presets strongly suggests that resolution scaling is governed by the GPU alone — the percentage drops are nearly identical regardless of which preset is selected.

The fact that the 1080p-to-1440p drop (roughly 34-35%) is smaller than the 1440p-to-4K drop (roughly 45%) aligns with the pixel count increases: 1440p has 78% more pixels than 1080p, while 4K has 125% more pixels than 1440p. The frame rate scaling is sub-linear relative to pixel count, indicating that the GPU has some headroom at lower resolutions but becomes increasingly pixel-bound at 4K.

The CPU's role appears minimal in this scaling pattern. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 251 FPS, which is high enough that even a very capable processor would be needed to feed the GPU. However, the consistent percentage drops across all settings suggest that the GPU is the primary limiter even at 1080p, as the CPU's workload does not change significantly with resolution.

# Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS as a baseline, the data shows that 4K High is the most demanding configuration that still meets this threshold, averaging 59 FPS — just barely shy of 60. For a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, 4K Medium delivers 69 FPS average with a minimum of 59 FPS, making it the safest 4K choice for fluid gameplay.

At 1440p, all settings presets exceed 60 FPS. Ultra averages 84 FPS, High averages 108 FPS, Medium averages 126 FPS, and Low averages 164 FPS. For players with high refresh rate monitors at 1440p, Medium is the recommended starting point — it provides 126 FPS average, which is well above the 100 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay on 120Hz displays, while the minimum of 107 FPS ensures consistent performance.

At 1080p, the combo is clearly overqualified for 60 FPS gaming. Even Ultra settings average 128 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS target. For 144Hz monitors, High settings at 164 FPS average provides adequate headroom, while Medium at 193 FPS is better suited for 165Hz displays. Low settings at 251 FPS will satisfy even the most demanding 240Hz monitors, though the visual compromises may not be worth the frame rate gains.

The data suggests that the Ultra preset offers diminishing returns compared to High. The gap between High and Ultra is consistent across resolutions: at 1080p it's 36 FPS (164 to 128), at 1440p it's 24 FPS (108 to 84), and at 4K it's 13 FPS (59 to 46). The percentage drop from High to Ultra is 22% at 1080p, 22% at 1440p, and 22% at 4K — a uniform cost that may or may not justify the visual improvements, depending on the player's preference.

For the best balance of visual quality and performance, High settings at 1440p appears to be the sweet spot. It delivers 108 FPS average, which is smooth on most displays, while maintaining a significant quality advantage over Medium. At 4K, Medium is the recommended preset, as High barely misses the 60 FPS target and Ultra falls well below it.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF uses the Alder Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, featuring 12 cores and 20 threads. Its base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 25 MB of shared L3 cache. This processor is unlocked, allowing for overclocking, and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance. Cinebench R23 multicore scores 28838, while single-core scores 4071. Geekbench multicore reaches 14367 with single-core at 2255. Passmark multithread scores 34092, and the 3DMark 16-thread test scores 9282. These figures place the CPU at the 85th percentile overall, indicating it is a top-tier processor for its generation.

In The Technomancer, the CPU's role is likely secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions, but it becomes more relevant at 1080p. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 251 FPS suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at very high frame rates. The 3DMark single-thread score of 1043 and Cinebench R15 single-core score of 410 indicate strong per-core performance, which matters for a game from 2016 that may not be well-optimized for many threads.

The processor's 20 threads provide ample parallel processing capability, though a 2016 title may not fully utilize them. The 3DMark 8-thread score of 7211 versus the max-thread score of 9983 shows that scaling continues beyond 8 threads, but the game's engine likely benefits most from strong single-thread performance. The Passmark single-thread score of 3984 supports this interpretation.

The CPU's proximity to its nearest rivals — all within 0.2% in aggregate benchmark scores — suggests that swapping to a Core i7-13700T, Core i5-13600T, or Core i7-12700K would produce nearly identical results in this game. The measured FPS data does not include CPU-specific bottlenecks, but the consistent frame rates across settings at each resolution imply that the CPU is not holding back the system, even at 1080p.