The Technomancer

The Technomancer (2016, Action RPG) on this desktop combination—Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER—shows a well-balanced pairing for a title that predates both CPUs and GPUs by several generations. The measured results cover four preset tiers (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) across three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160), and the data set reports average frames per second; Medium presets are the only tier that came with min and max values (at the measured medium settings, the min FPS at 4K is 69 and max is 94). Overall, this combo’s rank of 250 out of 3696 tested motherboards systematically indicates solid placement—better than about 93% of all tested combinations in this game, but not perfectly tuned for the highest refresh-rate 1080p display competition.

Resolution Scaling

At every preset, the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is remarkably consistent, which tells a clear story about where the limiter lives. For example, at High, 1920x1080 yields 194 FPS, 2560x1440 drops to 127 FPS, and 3840x2160 falls further to 70 FPS. The 1080p-to-1440p step reduces framerate by about a third, and the 1440p-to-4K step cuts framerate to roughly half of the 1440p value (multiply by roughly 0.55). The same pattern appears at every preset of low: 296 FPS at 1080p, 194 at 1440p, 106 at 4K. At medium: 227, 149, 82. At Ultra: 152, 99, 54. The consistency—percentage-wise, the drop between each.

This tells that the GPU is the primary constraint at 4K, while at 1080p the CPU is likely the dom available resource. At 4K, the 1080p-to-4K conversion cost is steep even for a 20 GB GPU, but the 4080 SUPER still hands out 54 FPS on Ultra 4K—playable if not rock-solid for high refresh. The thread: low at 4K hits 106 FPS, which smooths out the droops for higher refresh. The data shows that the game is not unusually dependent on CPU cores—the 14-core / 14-core combination with the 5.00 GHz boost also delivers the same FPS increase from lower settings as it does from higher settings, so the limit is the GPU at any preset above 1080p low.

Settings Safe Recommendations

For 4K displays, the most suitable image quality/Performance observations. Ultra preset yields an average 54 FPS—likely acceptable for story-driven RPG action, but none does. High preset bumps to 70 FPS, which is the typical 60Hz world and still leaves headroom for drops. Medium automatically provides 82 FPS, which is inside 90Hz territory, but that is Medium. If you have a 90Hz or 120Hz panel, High is the sweet spot: 70 FPS average, no guarantee of never dipping, but texture quality and effects at High are nearly indistinguishable from Ultra in many scenes. Low gives 106 FPS at 4K but—the (then) eliminating the graphical features that define the game’s lighting. The sweet spot when1 in particular at Medium settings: medium at 4K provides 82 FPS average. At 1440p, High gives 127 FPS–playing strongly if you have a 144Hz display. At 1440p Ultra you get 99 FPS, which is better for high refresh but still demands you to sacrifice frames; High and Ultra are the practical choice for 120/144Hz. At Full HD, the situation is reversed: Ultra can run 152 FPS average, but High can hit 194 FPS. If you own a 240Hz 1080p monitor, a low-cost possible 194 FPS at High, but only Low gets to 296 FPS. The measured minimal: 1080p Medium avg 227, min 193, max 262—the minimum is still above 144Hz and barely reaching 200Hz. High and Ultra are the best balance of image and speed for 1080p; Ultra is the cap for high refresh without Low.

Recommendations

Low - This is completely unplayable high-tier settings, is only useful for recording FPS or computer benchmark. Choose High. High - already the best for all resolutions (4K 70, 1440p 194, 1080p 194). At 4K you still can achieve 60+ FPS, at 1440p far above 100, at 1080p near 200. If you have a 144Hz 1440p display, High is the alert. Ultra - Gives 54 (4K), 99 (1440p), 152 (1080p). Use when you prioritize the game’s look (shadows, volumetrics) over a consistent 100+ FPS. Medium - minimal input for slow machines, but here it's not necessary. It provides comfortable margins over High (120 FPS at 4K, 225 at 1080p) but pays with accepted visual quality. For all resolutions, High sits the best midpoint of stable framerate and correct game visuals. The moment you have a 2080Ti class GPU, you can declare the whole package on High and forget about tuning.

Details Partner Analysis

The RTX 4080 SUPER carries 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256‑bit bus. At 4K High, the game memory footprint may require more than 8 GB for allocations like high-res textures, but the 16 GB total is ample for the Low/Ultra range in this title. The half of data—the GPU records a peak bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s on paper, which is far more than The Technomancer demands, and even 4K textures of 2016 hair do not stress this. In the "nearestRivals" list, the RTX 4080 SUPER sits right around the vanilla RTX 4080 (avg Mscore 54247 vs 54209, delta -0.1%) and ahead of the Radeon Pro W5700X / RX 6750 GRE. This mirrors the shot: The 4080 SUPER is the top‑of‑line Tensable, and its 52.22 TFLOPS FP32 is unbroken for this engine. The GPU consistently not the limiter; it delivers 4K Medium 82 and 4K High 70.

Observe the pass. The PassMark G3D score is 34236, ranking 86th percentile among all GPUs. This is relatively strong but the data shows a higher-end card with the 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 6600. By looking at its measured numbers in this specific title, the GPU rarely crosses under 60 FPS at 4K Ultra, only 54 FPS gain. That the 40‑series offers hardware‑based ray tracing, but The Technomancer (2016) does not employ ray-traced lighting; its older DX12 level is handled perfectly. 4K with High is the buffer zone, but always the GPU’s 16 GB headroom is not tested any average of 70 FPS for High.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The detailed numbers from the data sheet, listed by resolution, show a clear monotonic progression:

1920 × 1080

| Setting | Average | Min | Max |

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

| Low | 296 | – | – |

| Medium | 227 | 193 | 262 |

| High | 194 | – | – |

| Ultra | 152 | – | – |

2560 × 1440

| Setting | Average | Min | Max (not in pack for High/Ultra, only Medium has) |

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

| Low | 194 | – | – |

| Medium | 149 | 126 | 171 |

| High | 127 | – | – |

| Ultra | 99 | – | – |

3840 × 2160

| Setting | Average | Min | Max |

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

| Low | 106 | – | – |

| Medium | 82 | 69 | 94 |

| High | 70 | – | – |

| Ultra | 54 | – | – |

At 1080p, the gap from Low to Medium is 69 FPS (296→227). From Medium to High another 33 FPS (227→194), from High to Ultra 42 (194→152). The difference Low to Ultra is 144 FPS (296→152). For 1440p, also Low gives 194 FPS, High 127, Ultra 99. Below 1440, the timer declines. At 4K, the scale is roughly 25 FPS (152→127→99→54). The only published mins in Medium show minium values (1080 Medium: 262 max, 193 min; 1440 Medium 171 min 126; 4K Medium 94 max 69 min). These numbers indicate the game is not GPU‐bound when a 4080 SUPER is paired with this CPU even at 4K Medium (72 FPS low point) but for High and Ultra likely drops around 70–54, but no exact min recorded.

All 12 data points (average values) are from the measurements. The result for the GPU-Combo Trump self-management shows.

FAQ

Q: What is the fastest FPS you can expect at 1080p with this setup?

A: At 1080p Low, the measured average FPS is 296. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 152.

Q: Is the 4K Ultra preset playable on this combination?

A: The measured average FPS at 4K Ultra is 54 FPS. That is generally playable, but it's below the common 60 FPS rule of thumb. Dropping to High gives 70 FPS, which exceeds 60 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER compare to the RTX 4080 in this game family?

A: The average benchmark scores list the RTX 4080 at 54247, the 4080 SUPER at 54209, a difference of -0.1% (the Super is similar in synthetic). The real‑world measured FPS at each resolution and preset are the ones shown, so there is no meaningful difference in this title.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560×1440 Medium, the minimum reported FPS is 126, with an average of 149 and max of 171.

Q: How much CPU does this game need?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores, 14 threads, 3.40 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. At 1080p Low the FPS reaches 296, which is far above the GPU's typical output—indicating the CPU is not the primary constraint at 4K, but high refresh at 1080p is still possible.

Q: What other competitors does this CPU have in the margin?

A: In the nearest CPU benchmarks, the Ultra 5 235 scores an average 46062, which is 0.1% below the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030 on different test) and 0.1% below the Core i9-13900HX (46098).. The close numbers suggest the CPU is average.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor running on the Arrow Lake architecture, with boost kernel 5.00 GHz. Its 3 nm process (TSM) gives strong per‑core, but The Techomancer is a game from 2016 and not designed for many cores. This is obvious in the measurement: the FPS scaling from 1080p Low (296) to 1440p High (127) to 4K Ultra (54) is up entirely to GPU load. In fact, at 4K Ultra the FPS average of 54 aligns with high-quality 4K GPU output. The CPU's performance in Multi‑threaded mark—Cinebench R23 multi 14790, with single-core 2085—is above the average of the last generation, but in this single-threaded-based game, what matters is the single‑core throughput. Its PassMark single‐thread 4516. In the nearest rival comparison through benchmark scores, it falls within 0.1% of the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (4CPU) and Intel Core i9-13900HX CPU—all of which have slightly different (in knowing such).

The data indicates that when the pressure is on 1080p with low settings (296 FPS), the game runs essentially unloaded; the 235 is powerful enough not to impede the 4080 SUPER, whose own metrics (PassMark G3D 34236) are comparatively enormous. The game’s engineering: it probably prefers fewer, faster threads, and the 235's 5.0 GHz boost is enough to process high enough for over 200 FPS. In 4K, the CPU isn’t remarkable. Mind beyond: the GPU’s frame times are what produce extremes, not CPU. So in The Technomancer, the i5 Ultra 235 performs at a top-30° percentile among CPUs (89th percentile of all CPUs), making it without dand appropriate for 2016 gaming workloads.

The combination ranked 250 out of 3696 combos in the database (about 93rd percentile). That ranking includes all CPU-GPU pairs. Since the 4080 SUPER is a high-end part and the 235 is a newer mid-range CPU, the score is expected to be near the top. For a game that hasn't had, the real gain will be in GPU-heavy scenes.

The CPU memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s on a dual-channel DDR5 bus does not hurt in this scenario; the videos. The RTX 4080 SUPER 16 GB GDDR6X memory with its own 736.3 GB/s bandwidth is the more relevant resource. Considering the publication of the game in 2017 (not from this test) the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is future-heavy. The high clock (5.0) and 24 MB L3 cache (shared) of the lightweight handle 1080p and 1440p well unless the game state depends on new instructions.

Performance of the CPU is such that the game will be infinitely GPU-limited; no unique CPU adjustments can be made. Overclocking would not change anything: the 235 is also not unlocked multiplier (multiplierUnlocked: false), so a non‑K chip cannot be tuned. But the stock behavior shows it pairs admirably with the GPU; data for the game from measurement system shows.

Ultimately, this Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER combo delivers solid framerates across all presets and resolutions, with the best experience in High quality in 4K (70) or Ultra on a 1440p (99) display. The CPU stays well out of the way, letting the 4080 SUPER showcase its ability in a game that ages surprisingly well with modern utter power.