The Technomancer

The Technomancer presents an interesting performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 combination. The data indicates a system that is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, but with substantial headroom at 1080p that suggests the CPU is more than capable of feeding this graphics card. Benchmark results show a clear and predictable scaling pattern across the three tested resolutions, with the most significant performance drop occurring when moving from 1440p to 4K. The measured FPS figures point to a setup that prioritizes high refresh rate gaming at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K gaming will require settings adjustments to maintain smooth gameplay.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals a classic GPU-limited scenario at higher pixel counts. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings, the average FPS drops from 144 to 94, a 34.7% reduction. This is a substantial but expected decline, indicating that the Radeon RX 9070 is being pushed harder as pixel count increases. The transition from 1440p to 4K (3840x2160) is even more punishing, with the High preset falling from 94 to 52 FPS, a 44.7% drop. This steeper decline underscores that 4K resolution demands significantly more from the GPU, and the frame rates begin to approach the threshold where gameplay smoothness could be compromised.

At the Low preset, the scaling pattern is similar but with higher absolute numbers. The 1080p Low result of 219 FPS drops to 143 FPS at 1440p (a 34.7% decrease) and then to 79 FPS at 4K (a 44.8% decrease from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across presets suggests that the resolution scaling is primarily a function of the GPU's pixel throughput capabilities, rather than any CPU bottleneck. The Radeon RX 9070's 128 ROPs and 322.6 GPixel/s pixel rate are the likely limiting factors at higher resolutions, as the workload becomes more about filling pixels than processing geometry.

The data for the Medium preset provides the most complete picture, with min and max FPS recorded alongside averages. At 1080p Medium, the average is 169 FPS with a range of 143 to 194 FPS. This 51 FPS spread indicates some frame time variance, but the minimum still remains comfortably above 144 FPS, suggesting a smooth experience on high refresh rate monitors. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 110 FPS with a range of 94 to 127 FPS, a 33 FPS spread that shows tighter frame pacing. The 4K Medium result shows an average of 60 FPS with a range of 51 to 70 FPS, where the minimum falls to 51 FPS, which could be noticeable during intense scenes.

The Ultra preset shows the most dramatic scaling, with 112 FPS at 1080p dropping to 73 FPS at 1440p (a 34.8% reduction) and then to 40 FPS at 4K (a 45.2% reduction from 1440p). The 4K Ultra result of 40 FPS is the only measurement that falls below the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered the target for smooth gameplay. This indicates that the combination of 4K resolution and maximum settings is too demanding for this hardware configuration, and users seeking 4K gameplay will need to make significant compromises in visual quality.

Overall, the resolution scaling data suggests that the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is not the limiting factor in this configuration. The consistent percentage drops across all presets when increasing resolution point to the GPU being the primary constraint. The CPU's strong single-thread performance, evidenced by its 468 score in Cinebench R15 single-core and 4394 in Passmark single-thread, is sufficient to keep up with the GPU's frame output at all tested settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combination in The Technomancer?

A: The 2560x1440 resolution offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance. At High settings, the average FPS is 94, which provides a smooth experience on standard 60Hz monitors and is playable on 144Hz displays. The 4K resolution is viable only at Medium settings (60 FPS average) or lower, while 1080p is ideal for high refresh rate gaming with the Low preset achieving 219 FPS.

Q: How does the game perform at 4K with this hardware?

A: The performance at 3840x2160 varies significantly by preset. The High preset yields 52 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset achieves exactly 60 FPS average with a minimum of 51 FPS, making it the highest quality setting that maintains acceptable performance. The Low preset reaches 79 FPS, providing more headroom, while the Ultra preset drops to 40 FPS and is not recommended.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The benchmark data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions. The frame rate drops from 1080p to 4K follow a consistent percentage pattern (roughly 35% from 1080p to 1440p, and 45% from 1440p to 4K) across all settings, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's strong benchmark scores, including a 32924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3318 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, suggest it has ample headroom.

Q: What is the difference in performance between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 219 FPS average, while the Ultra preset achieves 112 FPS average. This represents a 107 FPS difference, with the Ultra preset delivering approximately 51% of the Low preset's performance. The High preset at 144 FPS and the Medium preset at 169 FPS fall between these extremes, offering various points of balance between visual quality and frame rate.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested combinations?

A: In the database of tested combos for The Technomancer, this configuration ranks 1114 out of 3696 total combinations. This places it in the top 30% of tested systems, indicating above-average performance for the game. The rank reflects the overall capability of the CPU and GPU pairing across all tested settings and resolutions.

Q: Does the game support high refresh rate gaming with this setup?

A: Yes, particularly at 1080p. The Low preset reaches 219 FPS, Medium achieves 169 FPS, and High hits 144 FPS, all of which exceed the 144Hz refresh rate common on gaming monitors. At 1440p, the Low preset at 143 FPS and Medium at 110 FPS also support high refresh rate displays, though the High preset at 94 FPS is better suited for 60Hz or 100Hz monitors.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal settings for this hardware configuration depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p gaming, the High preset at 144 FPS offers an excellent balance, providing substantial visual improvements over Medium while maintaining a frame rate that fully utilizes 144Hz monitors. Users with 240Hz displays can consider the Medium preset at 169 FPS, which offers a 25 FPS advantage over High while still delivering good visual quality. The Ultra preset at 112 FPS remains viable for those prioritizing image quality over maximum frame rates, as it stays above the 100 FPS threshold.

For 1440p gaming, the Medium preset at 110 FPS is the recommended choice for high refresh rate monitors, as it provides a smooth experience while maintaining good visual fidelity. The High preset at 94 FPS is suitable for 60Hz displays and offers improved visual quality over Medium. The Low preset at 143 FPS is the only option that fully utilizes 144Hz monitors at this resolution, though it comes with significant visual compromises. The Ultra preset at 73 FPS is playable but may not feel as responsive as the lower presets.

At 4K resolution, the Medium preset at 60 FPS is the highest quality setting that achieves the standard target for smooth gameplay. The minimum of 51 FPS indicates occasional dips, but the overall experience should remain acceptable. The High preset at 52 FPS is borderline, with the average falling just below the 60 FPS target, and may be playable for those who tolerate slightly lower frame rates. The Low preset at 79 FPS provides the best performance at 4K and is recommended for competitive play or when frame rate consistency is prioritized. The Ultra preset at 40 FPS should be avoided, as it falls below playable thresholds for most users.

The data suggests that this hardware combination is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can deliver high frame rates at quality settings. For 4K, users must accept compromises, with Medium settings representing the practical ceiling for this configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the performance ranges from excellent to outstanding across all presets. The Low settings produce an average of 219 FPS, the highest measurement in the entire dataset, indicating that the game is easily handled at this resolution with minimal graphical demands. The Medium preset delivers 169 FPS average, with a minimum of 143 FPS and maximum of 194 FPS. This consistency shows that the hardware maintains stable performance even with increased settings. The High preset achieves 144 FPS, which aligns perfectly with the refresh rate of common gaming monitors. The Ultra preset produces 112 FPS, still providing a smooth experience but with a noticeable 32 FPS reduction compared to High.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the expected impact of increased pixel count. The Low preset achieves 143 FPS, nearly matching the 1080p High result and demonstrating the GPU's capability at this resolution with minimal settings. The Medium preset delivers 110 FPS average, with a range of 94 to 127 FPS. This 33 FPS spread is tighter than at 1080p, suggesting more consistent frame pacing at this resolution. The High preset produces 94 FPS, which remains above the 60 FPS threshold and is suitable for most gaming scenarios. The Ultra preset drops to 73 FPS, still playable but requiring a monitor with adaptive sync for optimal smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes more constrained, with all presets showing the GPU's limitations at 4K. The Low preset achieves 79 FPS, providing the only result above 60 FPS at this resolution. The Medium preset delivers exactly 60 FPS average, with a minimum of 51 FPS and maximum of 70 FPS. This 19 FPS spread indicates some frame time variance, but the average remains at the target threshold. The High preset produces 52 FPS, falling below the 60 FPS target and potentially causing noticeable stutter in fast-paced scenes. The Ultra preset drops to 40 FPS, which is the lowest measurement in the entire dataset and generally considered too low for smooth gameplay.

The Medium preset is the only setting with complete min/max data across all three resolutions, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the spread is 51 FPS (143-194), at 1440p it narrows to 33 FPS (94-127), and at 4K it further narrows to 19 FPS (51-70). This trend suggests that as the GPU becomes more saturated, frame times become more consistent, reducing the likelihood of sudden spikes or drops.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 combination ranks 1114 out of 3696 tested combos for The Technomancer, placing it in the top 30.1% of all configurations. This is a solid ranking that reflects the balanced nature of this pairing. The Radeon RX 9070's average benchmark score of 23877 places it in the 69th percentile of all GPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 245's average score of 48995 places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. This indicates that the CPU is relatively stronger than the GPU in the overall hardware landscape.

Looking at the GPU's nearest rivals, the RX 9070 sits close to several other graphics cards in terms of average benchmark scores. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z has an average score of 23736, which is 0.6% lower than the RX 9070. The AMD Radeon RX 6800S scores 24063, which is 0.8% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile scores 23628, which is 1.1% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170, which is 1.2% higher. These narrow margins indicate that the RX 9070 performs in a tightly contested segment of the GPU market.

For the CPU, the Core Ultra 5 245's nearest rivals show similarly close performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196, which is 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228, which is 0.5% higher. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 48698, which is 0.6% lower. The Intel Core i5-14600K scores 48618, which is 0.8% lower. These small deltas suggest that the Core Ultra 5 245 performs competitively with these alternative processors.

The combination's rank of 1114 out of 3696 suggests that while this pairing is capable, there are many other configurations that achieve better performance in this specific game. The ranking takes into account all measured settings and resolutions, so the overall position reflects the hardware's versatility across different gaming scenarios.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 features 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This configuration, based on the Arrow Lake-S architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, provides strong computational capabilities. The absence of hyperthreading, indicated by the equal core and thread counts, means that the processor relies on its physical cores for all processing tasks. In The Technomancer, an Action RPG that may not heavily utilize many threads, this design can be advantageous as it allows for higher clock speeds on each core.

The CPU's benchmark results demonstrate its strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. The Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 3318 and single-core score of 468 show a ratio of roughly 7:1, indicating good multi-core scaling. The Cinebench R23 scores of 32924 multi-core and 4648 single-core show a similar pattern. The Passmark single-thread score of 4394 is particularly relevant for gaming, as many games rely heavily on single-thread performance for game logic and physics calculations.

In the context of The Technomancer, the CPU's role appears to be secondary to the GPU based on the measured FPS data. The consistent frame rate drops when moving to higher resolutions suggest that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any tested setting. The high single-thread performance likely ensures that the CPU can process game logic and feed the GPU with draw calls without becoming a limiting factor.

The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample fast memory for frequently accessed data. The DDR5 memory support with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth ensures that the CPU has sufficient memory bandwidth to support its computational tasks. The 65W TDP indicates efficient power usage, allowing for sustained performance without excessive thermal output.

The CPU's 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with the GPU's 69th percentile ranking, suggests that this system has a slight CPU advantage. This means that in CPU-intensive scenarios, the processor has headroom to maintain performance, while in GPU-intensive scenarios like high-resolution gaming, the graphics card becomes the limiting factor. The benchmark data confirms this, as the game's performance scales predictably with resolution, indicating GPU-bound behavior across all tested settings.