The Technomancer

The pairing of an Intel Core i7-14700K with an AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT in The Technomancer produces a dataset that clearly separates CPU and GPU responsibilities. The CPU is a high-end desktop part with a 94th percentile standing across all processors, while the GPU sits at the 59th percentile among all graphics cards. This imbalance surfaces in the measured frame rates: at 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 71 on Ultra to 139 on Low; at 2560x1440, it falls to 47–91; and at 3840x2160, it drops further to 26–50. The combination ranks 2741 out of 3696 tested combos for this title. That rank, combined with the frame-time behavior across resolutions, indicates that the CPU is rarely the limiting factor—the GPU’s pixel throughput caps performance when the render load grows.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured frame rates across the three resolutions form a clear pattern: every setting level loses a substantial chunk of average FPS when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, and then from 1440p to 4K. For example, at Low the averages are 139, 91, and 50; at Medium they are 107, 70, and 38; at High 91, 60, and 33; at Ultra 71, 47, and 26. Each step down resolution reduces the average by roughly 30–50% of the previous value, though the exact percentages are not stated here. The trend is monotonic and large, which indicates that the labor load placed on the GPU—pixel shading, fill rate, texture fetch—increases far faster than the CPU’s work. A strong CPU that holds its head high at 1920x1080 can still not compensate for the GPU’s inability to process 4K pixel densities.

One notable detail: when the resolution is doubled from 1920×1080 to 2560×1440, the Low setting loses 41 FPS (from 139 to 91). From 2560×1440 to 3840×2160, Low loses another 41 FPS (from 91 to 50). That is a fairly consistent drop per step, not a quadratic fade, but the total decline is still quite large. In contrast, when settings increase from Low to Ultra at a fixed resolution, the FPS loss is much smaller than the loss from resolution changes. For instance, at 1920x1080, going from Low (139) to Ultra (71) halves the frame rate, but going from 1080p to 4K at Low (139→50) loses even more. This suggests that resolution is a stronger combatant than per-pixel quality for this implementation—an point that matches the GPU’s narrow memory bus and 8 GB frame buffer.

The data points to the GPU as the main acerbator. Because the CPU remains the same regardless of resolution and the CPU’s benchmarks are high (single‑thread PassMark 4472, multi‑thread 52392), the hard cap in high‑resolution performance must come from the graphics card. The RX 5700 XT had a peak pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s, but those units are only useful at known output resolutions; the exhibited FPS at 4K Ultra (26 FPS) is far from the GPU’s attainable pixel‑fill ceiling. The most reasonable reading of measured FPS is that the GPU is binning at both the shader and memory bandwidth layers.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game’s results

The Radeon RX 5700 XT sits in the mid‑end, with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256‑bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The core is Navi 10, etched on a 7 nm process, featuring a base clock of 1605 MHz, a boost clock of 1905 MHz, and a typical “game” clock of 1755 MHz. For a title released in 2016, 8 GB memory is ample for storing geometry, textures, and shadow buffers; at 1920x1080 the frame counts remain high, with the Ultra preset still at 71 FPS. The 448 GB/s bandwidth is a key enabler for high‑resolution asset streaming; at 3840x2160 the framerate drops to 26–50 FPS, but the graphics memory is not exhausted because the game’s texture sizes are small enough for the VRAM budget.

The difference between “Low” and “Ultra” in this game likely causes far fewer GPU loads than resolution changes, since the measured values show that going from Low to Ultra at 1920x1080 costs you only about 40 FPS, while the entire resolution triple costs over 80 FPS. Specifically, at 1920x1080 the FPS average goes 139 (Low) → 107 (Medium) → 91 (High) → 71 (Ultra). That is a fixed per‑quadrant drop, but the single‑threaded demands of draw calls remain the same. At 3840x2160 the Ultra setting is 26 FPS, barely above the floor of playability, whereas Low still yields 50 FPS. This suggests the GPU’s shader unit count (2560 shading units) is stretched by the extra pixels rather than by pixel quality options.

The GPU’s nearest rivals give context for its positioning: its average benchmark score is 16361, and the closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351, +0.1%), while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell sits at 16408 (−0.3%) and the Radeon PRO W7500 at 16415 (−0.3%). These differences are ±0.3% or less, meaning the RX 5700 XT is essentially identical to those parts in synthetic aggregate performance. However, in actual gameplay, the measured outcome in The Technomancer are not as robust as the scoreboard would imply—mostly because the game’s engine does not scale perfectly with raw numbers.

CPU Role — cores, clock, and how they relate to this game’s results

The Intel Core i7‑14700K brings 20 cores and 28 threads base 3.40 GHz, boost 5.60 GHz, 33 MB L3 – and its benchmark profile is top‑tier: Geekbench multi‑core 20767, single‑core 2569, Cinebench R23 multicore 33440. This is a CPU that can feed a high‑end graphics card at 1080p without breaking a sweat. The fact that the game reaches 139 FPS at 1080p Low indicates that the CPU has ample reserve; it is not the initiative limiting the frame rate. At higher resolutions, the load moves entirely to the GPU, so the CPU’s strong single‑thread performance (fixed boost clock 5.60 GHz) matter less.

Nevertheless, the CPU does participate in some aspects. The game could execute draw‑calls and physics on all threads, and the i7‑14700K has plenty of firepower for any legacy game engine. Its PassMark single‑thread score of 4472 puts it at the extreme; the nearest CPU rivals are within 1%: the AMD EPYC 9115 has an average score of 69288 (delta 0.1%), the Ryzen 9 7950X 69515 (−0.2%), the Ryzen 9 7940HX 69875 (−0.7%), and the Ryzen 7 9700F 69996 (−0.9%). These thin deltas confirm that the CPU is in the 94th percentile overall. Therefore, the performance cap in this game almost certainly comes from the graphics card, not the processor.

Because the CPU is not under load, the overall frame rate is guided almost exclusively by the GPU’s rasterization limits. At 1920x1080, the CPU can still issue frames beyond 140 FPS, but the RX 5700 XT’s designed 9.754 TFLOPS of FP32 power and its fixed memory bandwidth impose a ceiling. The gap between 1080p Low and 1440p Low (139→91) is a direct trade‑off that would not be present if the CPU had to render at 1440p; the CPU simply cannot do that. Thus, for users seeking to lower the CPU bottleneck, resolution is the most important parameter, while settings such as dynamic detail map have a lesser effect.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 2560×1440 Ultra settings?

A: 47 FPS at 2560×1440 Ultra, based on the measured row for that resolution and quality.

Q: How much does the average FPS drop from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160 when using the High preset?

A: The average FPS goes from 91 at 1920×1080 High to 33 at 3840×2160 High, a stark decline.

Q: Which resolution setting still yields an average frame rate above 60 FPS?

A: 1920×1080 with High or Medium or Low (91, 107, 139 FPS) exceed 60 FPS; 2560×1440 with Medium (70 FPS) also surpasses that mark. All other 1440p and 4K presets fall below 60.

Q: Is this CPU the bottleneck when play this game?

A: No, the data shows the CPU is not the limiting factor because FPS scales strongly with resolution and preset quality, while the CPU remains constant. The CPU’s high benchmark scores (e.g., single‑thread 4472) ensure it can serve high frame rates.

Q: What is the measured minimum and maximum FPS for the 1920×1080 Medium setting?

A: The minimum is 91 and the maximum is 123, with an average of 107.

Q: How does the RX 5700 XT compare to its nearest GPU rival in general benchmarks?

A: The RX 5700 XT’s average score is 16361, which is 0.1% away from the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351) and −0.1% from the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408) and −0.3% from the Radeon PRO W7500 (16415).

Settings Recommendations — Which preset gives the most decent experience

The measured FPS table, the optimal preset depends on target display resolution or performance threshold. For 1920×1080, the High preset yields 91 FPS, which is smooth for most players; Ultra gives 71 FPS, still very playable, while Low gives 139 but sacrifices visuals. Because the game is not overly aggressive visuals, many users are willing to trade a few frames for better quality. Medium and High are the balancing points: Medium gives 107 FPS, High 91, both solid. Ultra’s 33 FPS advantage at 1920×1080 is not negligible, but it is below the satisfaction point for some. Therefore, for native 1080p, the High preset is a strong recommendation.

At 2560×1440, the measured averages are 91 (Low), 70 (Medium), 60 (High), and 47 (Ultra). Only Low exceeds 90 FPS, but Medium is still above 60. Because the game is an action RPG where frame stability matters, the Medium preset (70 FPS) offers a good balance between the literal motion smoothness and visual fidelity. Ultra (47 FPS) is playable but might cause occasional dips. At this resolution, Medium is arguably the sweet-spot.

At 3840×2160, the very solid 4K display expects a lot. Low yields 50 FPS, Medium 38, High 33, Ultra 26. None of the settings reach 60, so the player must accept lower frame rates. Low with 50 FPS is borderline playable, while Med at 38 and High at 33 are on the boundary. Given the high‑resolution visual demands, Low is the only preset that stays above 45 FPS average, making it the most functional on a typical 120 Hz monitor (though it still does not have a stable 60). For those who value image quality over frame rate, Medium at 38 might be selected, but the data shows a clear performance cliff: High and Ultra drop far below the criterion.

Measured FPS Breakdown — by resolution and preset

The following values are taken directly from the measured test runs:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

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

| 1920×1080 | Low | 139 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 107 | 91 | 123 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 91 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 71 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 91 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 70 | 59 | 80 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 60 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 47 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Low | 50 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 38 | 33 | 44 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 33 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 26 | – | – |

Cells with “–” indicate that no min/max data was provided for that setting.

The data shows a linear trend across the quality preset: at each resolution, dropping from Low to Ultra costs ~25‑60% of performance. The min/max values for the Medium presets provide 1% and 99% percentiles – at 1080p Medium, 85% that points, the range is 91–123; at 4K it is 33–44. These narrow ranges show that the frame pacing is relatively stable, though the large variation at 4K (11 FPS spread) suggests occasional drains.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combined rank of 2741 out of 3696 tested combos, this CPU/GPU pairing lands in the bottom quarter of all combinations tested in The Technomancer. That rank strongly aligns with the GPU’s overall percentile (59th) relative to—the CPU’s percentile is 94th, not the bottleneck. For a game such as envoy of the Technomancer, which rewards high resolution? The hardcap is on the graphics side, and the RX 5700 XT is only average in the current market. Its score of 16361 in the general database and its nearest the rival with a delta of -0.3% to -0.9% indicate that ascending 1% brings it to the edge of the RTX 4090 V2