The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 action RPG, presents a significant challenge to mobile hardware, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon 880M is firmly at the lower end of the performance spectrum. With a combo rank of 2761 out of 2825 tested configurations, this pairing is positioned to run the game only at modest settings and resolutions. The data indicates that the integrated GPU is the primary bottleneck, and users should set expectations accordingly for a playable, but not visually rich, experience.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a 16-core, 22-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. This is a high-end mobile CPU, and its performance in synthetic benchmarks is robust. In Cinebench R23, it scores 15028 points in multi-core and 1743 points in single-core tests. Its Passmark multithread score is 24873, and its single-thread score is 3468. These results place the processor in the 83rd percentile when compared to all other CPUs, indicating it is a very capable processor for compute-heavy tasks.

The processor’s performance is competitive with other mid-range desktop and mobile chips. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T, which has a nearly identical average benchmark score (32707 vs. 32697, a 0% difference), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360, which is only 0.1% faster. It also edges out the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F by 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H by 0.4%. The data suggests that the CPU is more than capable of feeding frames to the GPU in most scenarios, and it is unlikely to be the limiting factor in The Technomancer.

Given its strong multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 7 155H has ample headroom for the game’s logic, AI, and physics calculations. However, in this specific configuration, the CPU's potential is largely untapped. The measured frame rates are so low that they are clearly constrained by the integrated graphics, not the processor. The CPU has the raw power to handle the game's processing demands, but the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering workload. Therefore, while the CPU is a high-performing component in absolute terms, its role in this combo is to wait for the GPU to finish its work.

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

The AMD Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2900 MHz. It has no dedicated VRAM; instead, it uses system memory, with a bus width and bandwidth that are "System Shared" and "System Dependent". This is a critical limitation for gaming, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth and capacity.

The GPU's synthetic benchmark scores are underwhelming. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is only 535, and its Passmark G3D score is 7615. The Passmark DirectX 11 score is 73, which is a particularly low result. This places the GPU in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, making it a below-average performer. Its nearest rivals are older dedicated mobile GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (0.3% slower), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (0.3% slower). The data shows that while it can trade blows with these older discrete parts, it is fundamentally a low-end graphics solution.

In the context of The Technomancer, the Radeon 880M's performance is the single biggest constraint. The lack of dedicated VRAM means that at higher resolutions and settings, the GPU will be heavily reliant on system memory bandwidth, which is a shared resource. The low FP32 performance of 4.454 TFLOPS and the texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s are not sufficient to maintain high frame rates in a modern game. The GPU's 12 ray tracing cores are present, but in this performance class, they are unlikely to be usable for real-time effects without a catastrophic impact on frame rate. The data indicates that this GPU is only suitable for the lowest graphical presets, and even then, only at 1080p.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions clearly illustrates the GPU's limitations. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 66 FPS. This is the only setting and resolution combination that approaches a comfortable playable frame rate. Moving to High settings at 1080p drops the average to 44 FPS, a 33% reduction. At 1440p, the performance falls further: Low settings yield 43 FPS, while High settings drop to 28 FPS. At 4K, the situation becomes unplayable, with Low settings averaging only 24 FPS and High settings a mere 16 FPS.

The scaling pattern is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. When the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must render grows exponentially. The frame rate drops proportionally, indicating that the GPU is saturated and cannot keep up with the increased pixel throughput. For instance, moving from 1080p Low (66 FPS) to 1440p Low (43 FPS) is a 35% drop in performance, and moving to 4K Low (24 FPS) is a 64% drop from the 1080p baseline. This is far more severe than what a CPU-bound system would exhibit.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not scale with resolution in the same way. Instead, the data shows a steep decline, confirming that the AMD Radeon 880M is the bottleneck. The CPU, which is capable of high benchmark scores, is effectively idle while the GPU struggles to render each frame. The only way to improve performance is to reduce the GPU load by lowering the resolution or the graphical settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon 880M ranks 2761 out of 2825 tested combos for The Technomancer. This places it in the bottom 2.3% of all configurations tested. This is a very poor ranking, indicating that almost any other hardware pairing will provide a better gaming experience in this title. This ranking is not a reflection of the CPU's capability, but rather the severe limitation imposed by the integrated GPU.

This low rank means that users with this configuration will have to make significant compromises to achieve playable frame rates. While the CPU is in the 83rd percentile for all CPUs, the GPU is only in the 43rd percentile. The combination of a high-end CPU with a low-end GPU results in a system that is heavily unbalanced for gaming. The data suggests that this combo is better suited for productivity tasks or light, less demanding games, but for a title like The Technomancer, it is one of the weakest possible choices. The rank is a stark warning that this is not a gaming configuration.

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

The following data is directly from the measured FPS for The Technomancer with this hardware combination. The frame rates are averages, with minimum and maximum values noted where available.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Ultra: Average 12 FPS. This is not playable.
• High: Average 16 FPS. This is not playable.
• Medium: Average 18 FPS, with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 21 FPS. This is not playable.
• Low: Average 24 FPS. This is below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Ultra: Average 22 FPS. This is not playable.
• High: Average 28 FPS. This is borderline and likely to feel choppy.
• Medium: Average 33 FPS, with a minimum of 28 and a maximum of 38 FPS. This is playable but not ideal.
• Low: Average 43 FPS. This is a more acceptable frame rate.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Ultra: Average 34 FPS. This is playable but will have noticeable stutters.
• High: Average 44 FPS. This is a reasonable playable frame rate.
• Medium: Average 51 FPS, with a minimum of 43 and a maximum of 59 FPS. This is a smooth experience.
• Low: Average 66 FPS. This is the best performance available and is very smooth.

The data shows a clear progression: the only way to get a consistently smooth experience is to target 1080p with Medium or Low settings. At 1440p, only Low settings provide an acceptable frame rate, while 4K is entirely out of the question for any playable experience.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this configuration is at 1080p with Medium settings. This preset provides an average of 51 FPS, with a minimum of 43 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS. The minimum frame rate is above 30 FPS, which is generally considered the baseline for playability, and the average is comfortably in the 50s, offering a smooth and consistent experience. This is the best balance between visual quality and performance.

For users who prioritize a higher frame rate or who are sensitive to frame drops, the 1080p Low preset is the safest choice. It delivers an average of 66 FPS, which is a significant improvement over Medium and provides a large buffer against drops. The visual difference between Low and Medium in this game is noticeable, but the performance gain is substantial. If you want the highest possible frame rate, this is the setting to use.

The 1080p High preset, at 44 FPS, is a compromise. It offers better visual fidelity than Medium but dips below the 45 FPS average that is often considered the sweet spot for action games. While playable, it may feel less responsive. The Ultra preset at 1080p is not recommended, as the 34 FPS average is too low for a consistent experience, and the visual gains over High are likely to be marginal.

At 1440p, the only viable option is Low settings, which yields 43 FPS. This is a playable frame rate, but it requires a significant drop in visual quality. All other settings at 1440p are either too slow or provide an inconsistent experience. 4K should be avoided entirely, as even the Low preset at 24 FPS is not a playable experience. For this hardware combo, the optimal configuration is clearly 1080p Medium, with 1080p Low as the high-performance alternative.