The Technomancer

The Technomancer pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, a combination that delivers a playable but resolution-sensitive experience in this 2016 Action RPG. The measured data shows a system that is clearly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, while the CPU provides ample headroom at 1080p. This analysis breaks down the FPS results across resolutions and settings, interprets what the scores mean relative to the hardware's capabilities, and offers practical guidance on how to configure the game for the best experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep, and the pattern reveals a classic GPU-limited scenario. At 1080p with High settings, the combo averages 97 FPS. Moving to 1440p, that figure falls to 63 FPS, a reduction of 34 FPS. At 4K, the same High preset yields only 35 FPS, which is a 62 FPS drop from 1080p and a 28 FPS drop from 1440p. This scaling is nearly linear with the pixel count increase, indicating that the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary bottleneck as resolution climbs. The GPU’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 280.3 GB/s bandwidth is being saturated by the higher pixel throughput demands of 4K, especially with the game’s High settings.

The Low preset tells a similar story but with more absolute headroom. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 148 FPS. At 1440p Low, it still manages 97 FPS, and at 4K Low, it drops to 53 FPS. The gap between 1080p and 4K at Low is 95 FPS, which is proportionally larger than at High, but the absolute numbers are higher because the GPU’s shading units (2048) and texture units (128) are less stressed. The 4K Low result of 53 FPS is borderline playable, but it shows that even at the lowest settings, the RX 6650 XT cannot maintain a smooth 60 FPS at that resolution. The limiting component here is unequivocally the GPU; the CPU’s role is secondary, as evidenced by the fact that the FPS scales almost entirely with resolution rather than showing any CPU-related stalls.

The Medium preset offers a middle ground with measured FPS of 114 at 1080p, 74 at 1440p, and 41 at 4K. The 4K Medium result includes a min FPS of 35 and a max of 47, which shows significant frame time variance under load. This variance suggests that the GPU is hitting memory bandwidth limits, as the 128-bit bus struggles to feed the RDNA 2 architecture at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, yielding 76 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and just 27 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is effectively unplayable, and even 1440p Ultra dips below the 60 FPS target. Overall, the resolution scaling data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p being viable only at Medium or Low settings, and 4K being reserved for Low presets or a GPU upgrade.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process from TSMC. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz, which boosts to 5.10 GHz. In this game, the CPU’s role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and physics data, and its performance is more than adequate for The Technomancer. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and single-core score of 4648 place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outpaces the vast majority of processors on the market. For a game released in 2016, the CPU is overkill, and the measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 148 FPS, which is well beyond what most displays can show, and the CPU is not the limiting factor even at that high frame rate.

The nearest rivals to the Core Ultra 5 245, based on average benchmark scores, include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (deltaPct -0.4), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (deltaPct -0.5), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (deltaPct 0.6). These deltas are all within 1%, meaning the CPU’s raw compute power is essentially on par with those chips. However, what matters for gaming is single-thread performance, and the Core Ultra 5 245’s 5.10 GHz boost clock, combined with a 24 MB shared L3 cache, provides strong single-core responsiveness. The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is also sufficient to keep the GPU fed, though the GPU’s own memory bandwidth becomes the constraint at higher resolutions.

The fact that the FPS at 1080p High is 97 and at 1080p Ultra is 76, while the CPU’s single-core score is high, suggests that the game is not heavily CPU-bound in its default state. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see similar FPS across different resolutions, but the data shows a clear resolution-dependent FPS curve. The CPU’s 14 cores and 14 threads are likely underutilized, as most games of this era rely on a few threads, but the high boost clock ensures that those threads are fast enough. The Core Ultra 5 245’s TDP is 65 W, which is modest, and its performance in this game is more than adequate, but the GPU is the component that dictates the playable settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal setting for this combo depends on the target resolution and frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 114 FPS with a min FPS of 97 and a max of 131, which is an excellent balance of visual quality and performance. The High preset at 1080p still hits 97 FPS, but the jump to Ultra drops to 76 FPS, which is a 21 FPS penalty for what is likely a marginal visual improvement in a game from 2016. For most players, 1080p High is the sweet spot, offering a high frame rate that exceeds the 60 FPS target, while Medium is the safer choice if you want to guarantee no drops below 90 FPS.

At 1440p, the High preset yields 63 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold, but the Medium preset provides 74 FPS with a min FPS of 63, making it a more consistent option. The Low preset at 1440p hits 97 FPS, but the visual fidelity loss may not be worth it. The Ultra preset at 1440p yields 50 FPS, which is below the ideal range for fast-paced action, so it’s not recommended. For 1440p, the data suggests that Medium is the best choice if you prioritize smoothness, while High is acceptable if you can tolerate occasional dips to the 60 FPS range.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset averages 53 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a game that may have combat sequences requiring quick reactions. The Medium preset drops to 41 FPS with a min of 35, which is likely to feel choppy. The High and Ultra presets at 4K yield 35 FPS and 27 FPS, respectively, both of which are below the threshold for smooth gameplay. If you must play at 4K, the Low preset is the only viable option, but even that is borderline. The best overall experience, per the measured rows, is 1080p Medium or High, where the combo delivers frame rates well above 90 FPS, ensuring a fluid and responsive gameplay experience without compromising much on visual detail.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for The Technomancer, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1823 out of 2825 combos. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all tested configurations, which is somewhat surprising given the individual components’ benchmark scores. The CPU ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU ranks in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, but the combination’s in-game rank is below the median. This discrepancy suggests that the game’s engine may not scale well with high-end hardware, or that the GPU is holding the combo back in a title that is heavily GPU-dependent.

The combo rank of 1823 out of 2825 means that roughly 64% of tested combos perform better in this game. This is a clear indicator that while the CPU is a top-tier performer, the GPU is the limiting factor, and its mid-range positioning (65th percentile) drags the overall ranking down. The GPU’s nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (deltaPct -0.6), the AMD FirePro D300 (deltaPct 0.7), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (deltaPct 0.8). These are all older workstation-class cards, which highlights that the RX 6650 XT’s raw compute is comparable to those, but its gaming performance is better suited to 1080p rather than higher resolutions.

The fact that this combo ranks below the median suggests that if you are looking to play The Technomancer at higher settings, a stronger GPU would be a better investment than a stronger CPU. The CPU is already well above what the game needs, so upgrading it would yield little benefit. Conversely, the GPU’s 65th percentile ranking means there is significant headroom for improvement with a faster card. The measured FPS data supports this: at 4K Ultra, the combo only manages 27 FPS, which is a far cry from playable, and even at 1440p Ultra, it only reaches 50 FPS. The rank is a reflection of the GPU’s limitations in a game that was released before the RX 6000 series, but the data shows that the combo is not optimized for this particular title’s demands.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is a RDNA 2 architecture GPU with 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. Its base clock is 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s. The GPU’s pixel rate is 168.6 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 337.3 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 10.79 TFLOPS. In The Technomancer, the GPU is the dominant factor in determining performance, as evidenced by the FPS scaling across resolutions.

The GPU’s memory configuration is a key limitation. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the game’s High and Ultra presets may exceed that capacity, forcing the GPU to spill over into system memory, which causes the significant frame rate drops seen in the 4K results. The 128-bit bus also limits memory bandwidth, which is why the 4K Medium preset shows a min FPS of 35, indicating stuttering under load. The GPU’s 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the mid-range, and its closest rivals are older workstation cards, which suggests that its gaming performance is decent but not exceptional for modern titles.

In this game, the GPU’s role is to handle the rendering workload, and the data shows that it struggles at 4K. At 1080p Low, the GPU is able to push 148 FPS, but that drops to 27 FPS at 4K Ultra, a 5.5x reduction. This is a clear sign that the GPU’s compute resources (2048 shaders) are not sufficient for 4K Ultra, and its memory bandwidth is a bottleneck. The GPU’s boost clock of 2635 MHz is high, but it cannot compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth at high resolutions. For a game like The Technomancer, which likely uses deferred rendering and heavy post-processing, the GPU’s ROP count of 64 and texture units of 128 are adequate for 1080p, but the 4K results show that the GPU is out of its depth.

The GPU’s performance in synthetic benchmarks, such as Passmark G3D score of 17166, is average for its class, but the in-game results are more telling. The measured FPS at 1080p High is 97, which is a solid result, but at 1440p High it drops to 63, and at 4K High it falls to 35. This indicates that the GPU is not well-suited for resolutions above 1080p in this title, and users should expect to lower settings if they want to play at higher resolutions. The GPU’s power draw is 176 W, which is modest, but its performance is limited by its memory subsystem rather than its core clock speed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), providing a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 148 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. The Medium preset averages 114 FPS, with a min of 97 and a max of 131, indicating a stable frame time distribution. The High preset averages 97 FPS, which is still well above the 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset averages 76 FPS, which is the lowest at 1080p but still playable. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 72 FPS, showing that the GPU has enough headroom to handle all settings, but the Ultra preset’s 76 FPS is a 21 FPS drop from High, suggesting diminishing returns.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 97 FPS, which is identical to the 1080p High result, showing that reducing settings at a higher resolution can offset the resolution penalty. The Medium preset averages 74 FPS, with a min of 63 and a max of 85, which is a solid 60+ FPS experience. The High preset averages 63 FPS, which is right at the edge of smoothness, and the Ultra preset averages 50 FPS, which is below the ideal threshold. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 47 FPS, and the gap between Medium and High is only 11 FPS, suggesting that High is not much more demanding than Medium, but Ultra is a significant step up.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 53 FPS, which is the only 4K setting that approaches playability. The Medium preset averages 41 FPS, with a min of 35 and a max of 47, which is likely to feel stuttery during action scenes. The High preset averages 35 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 27 FPS, both of which are well below the 30 FPS minimum for most games. The drop from Low to Ultra at 4K is 26 FPS, and the performance is consistently poor across all settings, confirming that the GPU is not capable of 4K gaming in this title. The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where all settings are playable, and 1440p is viable only at Low, Medium, or High, while 4K is only possible at Low with compromises.