The Technomancer

The Technomancer is an Action RPGe (released 2016-06-27) tested here with an Intel Core i7-14700K (20 cores, 28 threads, 3.40 GHz base, 5.60 GHz boost) and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER (16 GB GDDR6X, 736.3 GB/s bandwidth). Measured rows span 1080p, 1440p, and 4K at Low, Medium, High, and Ultra presets. In the database of 3,696 tested CPU/GPU combinations, this combo sits at rank 250. All FPS values below are from the measured data set.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal preset depends on the display’s resolution and the framerate target supported by that display. The data suggests a clear sweet spot at each resolution.

At 3840×2160 (4K), the Ultra preset averages 54 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS baseline many 4K displays target. High produces 70 FPS, and Medium delivers 82 FPS with a recorded minimum of 69 FPS. Given that Medium maintains a floor above 60 FPS during dips, it emerges as the best choice for a 4K panel. The difference from High (70 FPS) to Medium (82 FPS) is 12 FPS, and the minimum frame time for Medium (69 FPS) ensures smoother pacing. The Low preset at 4K reaches 106 FPS, but sacrifices visual fidelity needlessly when Medium is available at 82 FPS with better detail.

• 2560×1440 (1440p): Ultra averages 99 FPS, just under 100, whereas High is 127 FPS and the Medium rooms at 149 FPS. For a 144 Hz display, Medium or High suffice; Ultra remains playable for 60–120 Hz screens. The best combination of visual quality and headroom is High, since it delivers 98 FPS above the Ultra floor of 99 FPS and a 28 FPS margin over 100 FPS. If refresh rate is 165 Hz, Medium at 149 FPS would be the cleaner choice.

• 1920×1080 (1080p): All presets are well above 144 Hz. Low reaches 296 FPS, Medium 227 FPS (minimum 193), High 194 FPS, and Ultra 152 FPS. For competitive play on 240 Hz panels, Medium or High are ideal; Ultra also exceeds 144 FPS. At 1080p, the GPU is only lightly stressed, so the recommendation is Ultra for maximum image fidelity with 152 FPS still achievable.

In summary, choose Medium at 4K, High at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p. Each keeps the framerate well above the refresh rate of the corresponding class of display.

How This Combo Ranks

On the full benchmark list of 3,696 combos tested within the game, the i7-5400K + RTX 4080 SUPER places 250th overall. That translates to a top 6.8% performance spot (250 divided by 3,696). The ranking measures raw FPS across a combined set of resolutions; outside but nearby combos of the pieces show the relative strength of each part:

• The CPU sits in the 94th percentile among all CPUs (percentileVsAllCpus: 94). Its nearest driver tier is placed by benchmarks: it trails the AMD Ryzen 9 7970F by 0.9% (deltaPct -0.9%), while the AMD EPYC 9115 (0.1%) and Ryzen 9 7950X (-0.2%) are within 1% in synthetic throughput.
• The GPU reaches the 86th percentile among all graphics cards. Its closest rivals in aggregated benchmark scores are the RTX 4080 (deltaPct -0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (‑1.1%), and AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (-2.7%). In three aggregate measures, the RTX 4080 SUPER is effectively a 0% shift from the RTX 4080.

In the game’s measured rows, this combo is clearly in the top echelon: fewer than 250 combinations in the entire database recorded higher FPS. The gap to the upper boundary may come from either component depending on resolution (see Resolution Scaling later). The rank 250 is – given that this is a 2016 title – notably stronger than the median combo, which would sit around rank 1848.

FAQ

Q: What average FPS does this system deliver at 1440p UHD?

A: In the measured data, 2560×1440 with High settings produces an average of 127 FPS. Ultra yields 99 FPS, Medium 149 FPS (min 120), and Low 194 FPS.

Q: Is the RTX 4080 SUPER faster than the RTX 4080 in this game?

A: The nearest rival comparison from the GPU benchmark pack shows the RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 54209, versus 54247 for the RTX 4080 – a deltaPct of -0.1% (i.e., a virtual tie). The game’s measured frames are too close to distinguish; both produce the same class of output when paired with the same CPU.

Q: When does the CPU become the limiter?

A: The scaling data provides a clue (see Resolution Scaling below). At 1080p Low setting, the combo reaches 296 FPS, while 1440p Low only 194 FPS, a 34.5% drop for a 1.78× pixel increase. Since the GPU load is reduced at low resolution, the CPU’s throughput (20 cores, 5.60 GHz boost, Cinebench R23 multicore: 33440.5) is strong enough to push beyond 200 FPS at 1080p.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes. 4K High (70 FPS) and Medium (82 FPS) both exceed 60 FPS; Ultra falls to 54 FPS. Hence Medium is the recommended preset for a locked 60 FPS.

Q: What is the minimum FPS in the only resolution/settings with min/max?

A: The data includes minimums only for Medium presets. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 193 FPS (maximum 262). At 1440p Medium min (value `126`) max 171. At 4K Medium, the minimum is 69 FPS and maximum 94.

Q: How does the combo’s ranking compare to other combinations?

A: This rank is 250 out of 3,696 combos, placing it in the 6.8% best recorded. The parts officially rank in the 94th (CPU) and 86th (GPU) percentiles, matching well with the observed game performance.

Measured FPS breakdown

The measured dataset includes average FPS (avgFps) for all preset/resolution pairs, and minimum/maximum for Medium presets only.

1920×1080 (1080p)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min‑FPS | Max‑FPS |

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

| Low | 296 | – | – |

| Medium | 227 | 193 | 262 |

| High | 194 | – | – |

| Ultra | 152 | – | – |

2560×1440 (1440p)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min‑FPS | Max‑FPS |

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

| Low | 194 | – | – |

| Medium | 149 | 126 | 171 |

| High | 127 | – | – |

| Ultra | 99 | – | – |

3840×2160 (4K)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min‑FPS | Max‑FPS |

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

| Low | 106 | – | – |

| Medium | 82 | 69 | 94 |

| High | 70 | – | – |

| Ultra | 54 | – | – |

The progression is monotonic: for each resolution FPS in Low > Medium > High > Ultra. The offset between Low and Ultra is larger at lower resolutions: at 1080p the gap is 204 minus 152 (52 FPS), at 1440p it is 194-99 (95 FPS), and at 4K it is 106-54 (52 FPS again). This non‑linearity hints at a CPU bottleneck relative to each resolution (see Resolution Scaling).

Resolution Scaling

Examining how FPS scales as resolution increases reveals the limiting component behavior. Taking the High preset as a reference:

• 1080p: 194 FPS
• 1440p: 127 FPS
• 4K: 70 FPS

The pixel counts are: 1920×1080 (2,073,600 pixels), 2560×1440 (3,686,400 pixels, 1.78× the 1080p load), and 3840×2160 (8,294,400, 4.00× the 1080p load). If the GPU were the only limit, the FPS would scale inversely with pixel count: 4K FPS should be 194/4 = 48.5 FPS for a 4K load. The measured 70 FPS is 44% higher than that plateau, indicating the GPU is not the sole bound at 4K. At 1440p the calculated 194/1.78 = 109, yet measured 127 – again higher. The same pattern shows the CPU is able to push more frames than a purely GPU-limited equation would predict.

The FPS division between 1080p Low and 1440p Low is also revealing: 204 FPS to 194 FPS (only 5.1% drop), even though pixel count increases 1.78×. This signals that at low graphic setups the GPU is not the bottleneck – the CPU’s multi‑thread power handles the game’s logic. At 4K Low, the FPS is 104, which is 49% of the 1080p low value (204), again disproportionate to the 4× pixel weight. The scaling curve flattens: from 1080p to 1440p High we lose 68 FPS (~35%), but from 1440p to 4K High we lose 57 FPS (~45%). As pixel count grows, the load eventually exceeds the GPU’s compute floor, but even at 4K Ultra the GPU delivers 54 FPS, which is only 28% of the 1080p Low count, a dramatic cut relative to the 4× pixel scaling.

The takeaway: the i7‑5400K offers abundant headroom for this title, allowing the GPU to remain unsaturated at lower resolutions. The framerate scales mostly with the GPU’s rasterisation output until the shader and texture load grows, which explains the sharp step between 1440p and 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7‑14700K provides 20 cores (28 threads), a base clock at 3.40 GHz and a 5.60 GHz boost. That configuration generates strong raw CPU throughput important for the action‑RP game, which is often single‑thread heavy in draw‑call scenarios from its era. The measured frames at 1080p Low (296 FPS) and 1440p Low (194 FPS) reveal that CPU speed far exceeds typical display refresh; the stage is never CPU‑strapped’ In general, the frame count at lower resolutions is limited more by the GPU memory bandwidth than by the CPU core count.

Specifically, at 1080p Low the game is executing only a modest pixel workload, yet the i7‑14700K logic and memory controller still produce 296 FPS. The boost clock of 5.60 GHz helps to feed the GPU quickly. The main architectural headroom comes from the 20‑core / 28‑thread composition—although the game (a 2016 title) is unlikely to scale strictly beyond 8–12 cores, the high single‑thread speed (single‑core Cinebench R15: 313.5 points) ensures timing stays UK. The 33 MB shared L3 cache also reduces memory pressure. In the benchmark suite, the CPU places in the top 94% of all CPUs; its nearest rival scores (AMD Ryzen 9 7950X: -0.2%) show it aligns with top‑tier IA.

At 4K the CPU effect is dilhashed: the GPU becomes the binder. The exact frame gap at 1080p vs 4K (204 vs 70 FPS DDR) confirms that as the GPU sits idle less, the CPU’s role diminishes. So the data supports that high‑core-count CPUs are not a liability for CPU-bound scenarios displayed here, but also are not the reason the combination achieves rank 250 – the modest FPS comes from the graphics core.

GPU Role

This NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER packs 16 GB GDDR6X on a 256‑bit bus with a bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s. Boost clock 2550 MHz, with 10,240 shading units, 80 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores payload. These characteristics translate to sustained throughput across the measured settings.

At 4K Ultra, the session’s average FPS is only 54 FPS, which is the strongest workload in the data. The 16 GB VRAM prevents capacity issues; the bus speed becomes the total texture load. Bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s is largely sufficient for a 2016 title. The measured rankings show the GPU sits in the top 14% (86th percentile) of all GPUs, and its aggregate benchmark score (54209) feeds into that percentile. Its nearest rival (RTX 4080, score 54247) is within 0.1% – functionally identical output for this title.

Within the setup, the GPU stones the load at 4K: it reduces 1080p Ultra 152 FPS to 54 FPS at 4K Ultra — a factor of 2.8× beyond the pixel count increase, meaning the GPU becomes the primary constraint. At Medium 4K, the GPU hits 82 FPS (min 69, max 94) which below the memory capacity still shows. This toggles the GPU as the most performance‑sensitive component once resolution reaches 4K. The VRAM limit is not reached, given no stutter pattern.

The GPU’s power for high refresh 1080p is apparent: 204 FPS in Low, 152 FPS in Ultra. These numbers fall within the class of a high‑refresh 1080p GPU offering (though Ultra at 1080p is still fluid). The strong band to the memory bus – 256‑bit with 23 Gbps – – is sufficient to keep texture data flowing.

In summary, the RTX 4080 SUPER is the defining factor above of 1960 pixels, while the CPU supports the extreme frame rates at 1080p. The 86 percentile rank of the GPU matches the 60‑70 FPS average at 4K filings.