The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 action RPG, presents a demanding workload that stresses both processor and graphics hardware. This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT, using benchmark data to interpret how each component contributes to the final frame rates.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

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. It operates with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU features a substantial cache hierarchy, including 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration places the processor in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong overall compute capability.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Core Ultra 5 245 demonstrates balanced performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32,924 points and single-core score of 4,648 points show robust multi-threaded and single-threaded capability. The Passmark multithread score of 38,706 and single-thread score of 4,394 further confirm this balance. The processor’s average benchmark score of 48,995 places it in close competition with several rivals. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores nearly identically, with a delta of -0.4%, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is just 0.5% behind. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% ahead, and the Intel Core i5-14600K leads by a margin of 0.8%. These small deltas suggest that in CPU-bound scenarios, the Core Ultra 5 245 performs on par with these alternatives.

For The Technomancer, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game logic. The measured frame rates show a clear pattern of GPU limitation at higher resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 179 FPS, which is a high frame rate that still leaves headroom. The jump from 1080p Low to 1080p High sees a drop to 117 FPS, indicating that even at this resolution, graphics settings begin to tax the system. The processor's strong single-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 468 and Passmark single-thread score of 4,394, helps maintain high minimum frame rates in scenes with complex AI or physics. However, the data suggests that the Core Ultra 5 245 is rarely the primary bottleneck in this pairing; its performance is sufficient to push frame rates to the levels observed.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. With 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, the card delivers a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is rated at 13.31 TFLOPS. The GPU holds a 71st percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26,011.

In DirectX 11, the API most likely used by The Technomancer, the RX 6750 XT scores 180 in the Passmark test. Its DirectX 12 score is lower at 80, while the older DirectX 10 and DirectX 9 scores are 125 and 263, respectively. The GPU's Passmark G3D score of 20,700 and compute score of 9,550 provide context for its raw performance. The nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, which is 0.5% behind, the AMD FirePro W7100 at 0.6% behind, the AMD FirePro D700 at 0.7% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, which is 1.1% ahead. These deltas are minimal, indicating that the RX 6750 XT is positioned within a tight performance band.

The GPU's 12 GB of VRAM is a key asset for The Technomancer, a game that can be memory-intensive at high resolutions and settings. The measured frame rates show a significant scaling of performance with resolution, which points to the GPU as the limiting factor in most scenarios. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 33, a figure that is not playable for smooth action. The GPU's memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s is sufficient for the game's textures, but the raw compute power of 13.31 TFLOPS dictates the ceiling for frame rates. The data shows that the RX 6750 XT is the dominant component in determining performance in this pairing, particularly as resolution and settings increase.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 179 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 117 FPS, a reduction of 62 FPS or about 35%. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls further to 64 FPS, which is a 115 FPS drop from 1080p Low, representing a 64% reduction. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is under heavy load as pixel count increases.

The pattern is similar for High settings. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 117. At 1440p High, it drops to 77 FPS, a 40 FPS decrease. At 4K High, the average is 42 FPS, which is 75 FPS below the 1080p figure. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings shows a drop of 35 FPS, or roughly 45%. This consistent fall-off across all settings strongly suggests that the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the primary bottleneck. The CPU, with its high single-core scores, is not limiting performance at these lower resolutions; instead, the GPU’s rendering capacity is being exceeded.

For Medium settings, the frame rates are 138 FPS at 1080p, 90 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 48 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K is another 41 FPS. At Ultra settings, the system produces 92 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The decline from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is 59 FPS. This data indicates that the GPU is the limiting component across the board. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at higher resolutions, as the GPU would have more time to render frames. Instead, the continuous drop with resolution confirms that the RX 6750 XT is the constraining factor, and the Core Ultra 5 245 has ample headroom.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested hardware combinations for The Technomancer, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1,262nd out of 2,825 total combos. This places the system in the 55th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning it performs better than 55% of the combos tested. The rank is a holistic measure that accounts for all resolutions and settings measured.

Given that the GPU is the limiting factor, this rank is primarily a reflection of the RX 6750 XT's performance tier. The Core Ultra 5 245's strong synthetic scores, which place it in the 90th percentile of CPUs, do not boost the combo's rank because the GPU cannot translate that CPU headroom into higher frame rates. The rank of 1,262 indicates a mid-pack position. It is neither a top-tier configuration nor a low-end one. The data suggests that this combo is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but it falls behind higher-performing GPU pairings at 4K. The rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's 71st percentile standing among all GPUs, which is the limiting factor in this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in The Technomancer?

A: The data shows that 1080p is the most playable resolution. At High settings, the average FPS is 117, and at Low settings it reaches 179 FPS. 1440p is also viable, with High settings producing 77 FPS, but 4K at High settings drops to 42 FPS, which may be too low for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 7900?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The Ryzen 9 7900 has an average score of 49,228, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has a score of 48,995, a delta of -0.5%. This indicates that their overall CPU performance is statistically similar.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT better than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile?

A: No. The RTX 3080 Ti Mobile has a higher average benchmark score of 25,740 compared to the RX 6750 XT's 26,011. The delta is 1.1%, meaning the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile is 1.1% faster in the aggregate benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, Low settings produce an average of 117 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 60 FPS. This is a difference of 57 FPS, showing that Ultra settings cut performance roughly in half.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: The data suggests no. The frame rates scale consistently with resolution, dropping from 179 FPS at 1080p Low to 64 FPS at 4K Low. This pattern indicates the GPU is the limiting component, as the CPU is capable of maintaining high frame rates.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT had a launch MSRP of 549 USD.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following data represents the measured average frame rates for this hardware combination.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Ultra: 33 FPS average
• High: 42 FPS average
• Medium: 49 FPS average, with a minimum of 42 FPS and a maximum of 57 FPS
• Low: 64 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Ultra: 60 FPS average
• High: 77 FPS average
• Medium: 90 FPS average, with a minimum of 76 FPS and a maximum of 103 FPS
• Low: 117 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Ultra: 92 FPS average
• High: 117 FPS average
• Medium: 138 FPS average, with a minimum of 117 FPS and a maximum of 158 FPS
• Low: 179 FPS average

The data for High, Low, and Ultra settings does not include minimum or maximum FPS values, while Medium settings for all resolutions includes these figures. This provides a partial view of frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range from 117 to 158 FPS shows a variance of 41 FPS, which is a moderate spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is from 76 to 103 FPS, a variance of 27 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is from 42 to 57 FPS, a variance of only 15 FPS. This tightening of the frame range at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor, as it is working closer to its maximum capacity.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

For 1080p gaming, the High preset is the recommended choice. It delivers an average of 117 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. While Low settings achieve 179 FPS, the visual fidelity gain from High is significant, and the frame rate remains exceptionally high. Ultra settings at 1080p produce 92 FPS, which is still playable, but the drop of 25 FPS from High to Ultra may not justify the marginal visual improvement. The Medium preset at 138 FPS is also a strong option, but High offers a better balance of performance and visual quality.

For 1440p gaming, the High preset is again the best balance. It produces an average of 77 FPS, which is comfortably above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset at 60 FPS is exactly at the threshold for smooth play, but it leaves no headroom for demanding scenes, which could cause noticeable dips. Medium settings at 90 FPS provide more headroom, but High is the sweet spot for visual quality and performance. Low settings at 117 FPS are unnecessary unless maximum frame rates are prioritized over graphics.

For 4K gaming, the data indicates that this combo struggles. The High preset yields only 42 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for most players. The Low preset at 64 FPS is the only 4K setting that achieves a playable frame rate above 60 FPS. Medium settings at 49 FPS are borderline, while Ultra at 33 FPS is not recommended for action gameplay. Therefore, for 4K, players should use Low settings to maintain a consistent 64 FPS, or accept lower frame rates with higher visual fidelity. The 4K data clearly shows the GPU is the limiting factor, as even Low settings require a significant reduction in resolution scaling to maintain performance.