The Technomancer

# The Technomancer with Intel Core i9-14900K + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, presents an interesting workload for this modern flagship pairing. The Intel Core i9-14900K and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination sits at rank 472 out of 1656 tested hardware combos in this title, placing it in the upper third of all configurations. The measured FPS data reveals a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, while the 24-core, 32-thread processor with a 6.00 GHz boost clock provides ample headroom. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across three resolutions and four quality presets, interpreting what the numbers mean for actual gameplay.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 39.7 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This is the most demanding configuration in the dataset.

Q: How much faster is Low settings compared to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 229 FPS on average, while Ultra produces 119.1 FPS. The difference is 109.9 FPS, meaning Low is roughly 92% faster than Ultra at this resolution.

Q: Does the RX 9070 XT maintain 60+ FPS at 1440p High settings?

A: Yes, the measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings is 96.5 FPS. This comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS target and provides a smooth experience for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the RX 9070 XT among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon RX 9070 XT falls in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs based on its average benchmark score of 39647. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 575, scores 39703, a margin of only -0.1%.

Q: How does the Core i9-14900K compare to its closest rival in CPU benchmarks?

A: The Core i9-14900K has an average benchmark score of 79824, placing it 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900KF and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. The AMD EPYC 7413 is 0.3% ahead of the i9-14900K with a score of 80041.

Q: Is the 4K Medium preset playable on this hardware?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the measured average FPS is 62.7. This is above the 60 FPS baseline, indicating playable performance, though High settings at 55 FPS require a small compromise.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture using the Navi 48 chip fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The base clock is 1660 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. These specifications position the card with 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units, which directly influence its pixel and texture throughput.

In The Technomancer, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution scales upward. At 1080p, the combination of the i9-14900K's high single-thread performance (7040 in Cinebench R23 single-core) and the RX 9070 XT's raw throughput produces frame rates well above 100 FPS across all settings. The GPU's 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is sufficient to handle the game's rendering demands at these lower resolutions without bottlenecking.

The 16 GB VRAM capacity is a critical asset in this title, particularly at 4K resolution where texture and geometry data requirements spike. With 128 ROPs delivering a pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s, the card can sustain high fill rates even when rendering at 3840x2160. The memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s ensures that the GPU's cores remain fed with data, which is evident in the relatively modest performance drop between Medium and High settings at 4K (62.7 FPS to 55 FPS, a 12% reduction).

The GPU's percentile ranking at 82 indicates strong overall performance, though its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (-0.6% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (-0.5% delta). These margins are negligible in real-world terms, meaning the RX 9070 XT sits at the top of this performance cluster. However, the frame rate data reveals that even this capable GPU struggles with Ultra settings at 4K, suggesting that the game's Ultra preset imposes extreme shader and post-processing loads.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal balance between visual quality and performance varies significantly by resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 153.6 FPS, which is more than sufficient for any display refresh rate commonly available. The Ultra preset at 119.1 FPS still provides excellent smoothness, making it a viable choice for users prioritizing image quality. The Low preset at 229 FPS only serves competitive scenarios where maximum frame rates matter, but the visual degradation likely outweighs the benefit.

At 2560x1440, High settings produce 96.5 FPS, which remains well above the 60 FPS target and provides headroom for high-refresh-rate gaming. Medium settings at 115.2 FPS offer a small performance boost with minimal visual compromise. Ultra at 76.3 FPS is still playable but drops below the 100 FPS threshold that many gamers prefer for fast-paced action. The data suggests High is the sweet spot at this resolution, delivering over 96 FPS while maintaining the visual fidelity expected from a modern GPU.

For 4K gameplay, the recommendation becomes more nuanced. The Medium preset at 62.7 FPS is the only setting that clears the 60 FPS baseline, making it the default choice for a smooth experience. High at 55 FPS is close but requires a tolerance for sub-60 frame rates, while Ultra at 39.7 FPS is not recommended for serious play. Low at 84.6 FPS offers the fastest 4K experience but sacrifices significant visual quality. The measured data indicates that Medium at 4K is the best compromise, providing playable frame rates with acceptable graphical fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the performance envelope spans from 229 FPS at Low to 119.1 FPS at Ultra. The medium preset achieves 180.2 FPS, while High produces 153.6 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium (a 48.8 FPS drop) is steeper than from Medium to High (a 26.6 FPS drop), suggesting diminishing returns as settings increase. The step from High to Ultra (a 34.5 FPS drop) indicates that Ultra imposes additional rendering costs beyond the High preset.

At 2560x1440, the measured values are 153.7 FPS at Low, 115.2 FPS at Medium, 96.5 FPS at High, and 76.3 FPS at Ultra. The relative drops between consecutive presets are 38.5 FPS (Low to Medium), 18.7 FPS (Medium to High), and 20.2 FPS (High to Ultra). Compared to 1080p, the absolute frame rates decrease by 32.9% at Low, 36.1% at Medium, 37.2% at High, and 35.9% at Ultra, showing a fairly consistent scaling penalty across settings.

At 3840x2160, the data shows 84.6 FPS at Low, 62.7 FPS at Medium, 55 FPS at High, and 39.7 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 21.9 FPS, which grows to a 7.7 FPS difference between Medium and High. The most dramatic drop occurs from High to Ultra, a 15.3 FPS reduction that pushes the frame rate below the playable threshold. The 4K data reveals that the game's Ultra preset at this resolution is disproportionately expensive relative to the visual gains it provides.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p demonstrates a consistent performance penalty across all settings. The average FPS drops by approximately 35-37% regardless of preset, indicating that the GPU's rendering load scales predictably with pixel count. This consistency suggests that the RX 9070 XT is the limiting component at these resolutions, as the CPU's performance headroom (evidenced by its 97th percentile ranking) does not constrain frame rates.

Moving from 1440p to 4K introduces a more variable scaling pattern. At Low settings, the drop is 45% (from 153.7 to 84.6 FPS), while at Medium it is 45.6% (from 115.2 to 62.7 FPS). High settings see a 43% reduction (from 96.5 to 55 FPS), and Ultra shows a 48% decrease (from 76.3 to 39.7 FPS). The larger relative drop at Ultra suggests that the 4K Ultra preset pushes the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading resources to their limits, causing a more than linear increase in render time.

The overall scaling pattern reveals that The Technomancer is heavily GPU-bound at all tested resolutions. The i9-14900K's benchmark scores, including a multicore score of 49872 in Cinebench R23 and a single-thread score of 7040, provide no indication of CPU limitation in this data. The frame rate reductions from 1080p to 4K align closely with the pixel count increase (a 4x pixel ratio would theoretically produce a 75% frame rate reduction, but measured drops are smaller, indicating some efficiency gains at higher resolutions).

The fact that Low settings at 4K (84.6 FPS) outperform Ultra at 1440p (76.3 FPS) highlights the GPU's role as the primary bottleneck. The performance difference between these two scenarios is entirely attributable to the rendering workload, not CPU capability. This analysis confirms that users targeting 4K should prioritize Medium settings, while those with 1080p or 1440p displays can leverage higher presets without concern for CPU-induced frame pacing issues.