The Technomancer

# The Technomancer with Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT lands at rank 1262 out of 2825 tested combos for The Technomancer, placing it in the upper-middle portion of the database. The data shows a pairing where the GPU's 12 GB VRAM and the CPU's 20 cores create a balanced platform, though the measured frame rates reveal distinct bottlenecks depending on resolution and settings. The benchmark results indicate this is a capable 1440p-oriented setup, with 1080p performance that exceeds typical display refresh rates and 4K results that require careful settings management to stay playable.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's position at 1262 of 2825 places it in the 55th percentile of all tested combinations for this game, meaning roughly 44% of pairings perform better. This mid-pack standing is somewhat surprising given the individual component rankings—the CPU sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 71st percentile among all GPUs. The game's age (released in 2016) and its Action RPG genre likely mean it favors certain hardware characteristics over raw compute power.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals provides context for its contribution. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores an average benchmark of 64640, which is only 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823) and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202). It edges out the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438) by 0.3% and sits 0.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104, though the deltaPct shows -0.7% meaning the 265 trails it). These are all server-class processors, which suggests the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers workstation-level multi-threaded performance that may be overkill for a 2016 title.

The GPU's nearest rivals tell a different story. The RX 6750 XT's average benchmark score of 26011 places it just 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25891) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W7100 (25856). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740) trails by 1.1%. These are significantly older or lower-tier cards, which suggests the RX 6750 XT's synthetic benchmark performance may not fully translate to gaming workloads like The Technomancer.

The rank disparity between component percentiles and the final combo rank suggests The Technomancer may be more GPU-limited than CPU-limited in most scenarios. The data shows the GPU's 71st percentile ranking is the more binding constraint, and the combo's 55th percentile position reflects that the game likely cannot fully utilize the CPU's substantial multi-threading capabilities.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU's base clock runs at 2150 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. This memory configuration is particularly relevant for The Technomancer, as the game's texture streaming and open-world environments can benefit from larger VRAM pools.

The GPU's pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s suggest it can handle the visual effects typical of an Action RPG from this era. With 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, the RX 6750 XT provides a balanced compute-to-memory ratio. The 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance indicates this is a mid-range card that relies on efficiency rather than brute force.

The measured FPS data reveals how the GPU's capabilities scale with settings. At 1080p, the GPU delivers 179 FPS on Low settings but drops to 92 FPS on Ultra—a 49% reduction. This scaling pattern suggests the GPU is the primary driver of performance at lower resolutions, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom. At 4K, the GPU manages 64 FPS on Low but only 33 FPS on Ultra, showing that the RX 6750 XT's 12 GB VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth become strained at higher resolutions with maximum settings.

The GPU's 40 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are present in the hardware, though The Technomancer predates widespread ray tracing adoption. The data shows the game runs on DirectX 11 primarily, with the GPU's PassMark DirectX 11 score of 180 being higher than its DirectX 12 score of 80. This suggests the game likely uses the older API path, which may not fully leverage the RDNA 2 architecture's modern features.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals where the bottleneck shifts. At 1080p with High settings, the combo achieves 117 FPS. Moving to 1440p High drops this to 77 FPS (a 34% reduction), and 4K High falls to 42 FPS (a 45% reduction from 1440p). This scaling pattern indicates the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises, with the CPU's 20 cores providing ample headroom even at 1080p.

The Low settings data shows even steeper scaling. At 1080p Low, the system hits 179 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 117 FPS (35% lower), and at 4K Low, it reaches 64 FPS (45% lower from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across settings suggest the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute units are the limiting factors as pixel count increases.

Medium settings show a similar pattern with more granular data. At 1080p Medium, the average is 138 FPS with a minimum of 117 FPS and maximum of 158 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 90 FPS (35% lower) with min/max of 76/103 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 49 FPS (46% lower) with min/max of 42/57 FPS. The minimum FPS values at each resolution step show the frame time consistency degrades as resolution increases.

Ultra settings demonstrate the most dramatic scaling. The 1080p Ultra average of 92 FPS drops to 60 FPS at 1440p (35% lower) and 33 FPS at 4K (45% lower). The 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS is below the 42 FPS minimum seen at 4K Medium, indicating that Ultra settings push the GPU into territory where frame pacing becomes inconsistent.

The data suggests the CPU is not a limiting factor at any resolution. The Core Ultra 7 265's 5.30 GHz boost clock and 20 threads provide sufficient single-threaded performance for the game's logic, as evidenced by the relatively consistent percentage drops across resolutions. The GPU's 12 GB VRAM becomes the primary constraint at 4K, where Ultra settings likely exceed the memory capacity or bandwidth limits.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in The Technomancer?

A: The measured data shows 1080p High delivers 117 FPS and 1440p High delivers 77 FPS. Both are playable, but the 1440p result is closer to the 60 FPS threshold, while 1080p provides substantial headroom. The 4K High result of 42 FPS suggests 1440p is the sweet spot for balancing visual quality and performance.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest competitors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, which is 0.3% lower than the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823), 0.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438), and 0.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202). It trails the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104) by 0.7%.

Q: What settings should be avoided at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows 4K Ultra produces an average of 33 FPS, which is below the minimum FPS of 42 seen at 4K Medium. This indicates Ultra settings at 4K cause significant performance degradation. Even 4K High at 42 FPS is marginal, so Medium or Low settings are recommended for 4K gameplay.

Q: Is the GPU's 12 GB VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The 12 GB VRAM appears adequate for The Technomancer, as the game's texture requirements are met even at 4K Ultra. The performance drop at 4K Ultra (33 FPS) is more likely due to the GPU's compute capabilities and memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s rather than VRAM capacity constraints.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 1262 out of 2825 tested combos, placing it in the upper-middle range. This is lower than the CPU's individual 93rd percentile ranking and the GPU's 71st percentile ranking, suggesting the game's engine does not fully utilize the hardware's peak capabilities.

Q: What is the expected frame rate at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 1440p Medium averages 90 FPS with a minimum of 76 FPS and maximum of 103 FPS. This provides a smooth experience with consistent frame times, making it a recommended configuration for this resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 features 20 cores and 20 threads, operating at a base clock of 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This Arrow Lake-S architecture processor has a 30 MB shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 cache per core, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The CPU's 65 W TDP and 3 nm process node from TSMC indicate high efficiency, though The Technomancer's 2016 engine likely does not scale perfectly with modern multi-core designs.

The CPU's benchmark results show substantial multi-threaded capabilities. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42216 in multi-core and 5960 in single-core. The PassMark multi-thread score of 49682 and single-thread score of 4689 further confirm its strength. The data compression score of 522983 and floating-point math score of 172776 indicate the CPU excels at parallel workloads, though these may not directly translate to gaming performance.

The game's Action RPG genre typically involves complex AI, physics, and dynamic world interactions. The CPU's 20 threads can handle these workloads, but the measured FPS data suggests the game does not become CPU-bound even at 1080p Low where the system achieves 179 FPS. The CPU's 5.30 GHz boost clock provides strong single-threaded performance for game logic, while the 20 cores offer headroom for background tasks and streaming.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth aligns well with the GPU's 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 lanes ensures the GPU has sufficient bandwidth for data transfer. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU is present but not utilized in this configuration, as the discrete RX 6750 XT handles all rendering.

The CPU's nearest rival comparisons show it trades blows with server-class EPYC processors, which is unusual for a desktop chip. The data implies the Core Ultra 7 265 provides enterprise-level multi-threading that is largely underutilized in this gaming scenario, as the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, all settings provide playable results, with Low at 179 FPS, Medium at 138 FPS, High at 117 FPS, and Ultra at 92 FPS. For a standard 60 Hz display, Ultra settings are viable, while High settings provide a good balance for 144 Hz displays.

At 1440p, the data recommends Medium or High settings. Medium delivers 90 FPS with a minimum of 76 FPS, while High delivers 77 FPS. Ultra drops to 60 FPS, which is still playable but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes. Low at 117 FPS is smooth but sacrifices visual quality that the GPU can handle at Medium.

At 4K, the recommendations are more conservative. Low settings at 64 FPS are the only configuration that consistently exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 49 FPS is playable but may experience drops to 42 FPS in demanding scenes. High at 42 FPS and Ultra at 33 FPS are below the 60 FPS threshold and may cause noticeable stuttering in action sequences.

The best experience per the measured rows appears to be 1440p with Medium settings. This configuration provides 90 FPS average with a tight frame time distribution (76-103 FPS), which balances visual fidelity and performance. For users prioritizing maximum smoothness, 1080p High at 117 FPS is the recommended choice, as it offers a significant frame rate advantage over 1440p without sacrificing too much visual quality.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing 12 distinct data points. At 1080p, the system achieves 179 FPS on Low, 138 FPS on Medium (with min/max of 117/158), 117 FPS on High, and 92 FPS on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra represents a 49% performance reduction, indicating the GPU's workload scales significantly with settings.

At 1440p, the results show 117 FPS on Low, 90 FPS on Medium (with min/max of 76/103), 77 FPS on High, and 60 FPS on Ultra. The reduction from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across settings, averaging around 35%. The Ultra setting at 1440p produces exactly 60 FPS, which is the minimum threshold for smooth gameplay on most displays.

At 4K, the data shows 64 FPS on Low, 49 FPS on Medium (with min/max of 42/57), 42 FPS on High, and 33 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1440p to 4K averages around 45%, which is steeper than the 1080p to 1440p drop. This suggests the GPU's memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s becomes a limiting factor at 4K, particularly at higher settings where texture and shader complexity increase.

The minimum FPS data at Medium settings provides insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the minimum of 117 FPS represents 85% of the average, indicating good consistency. At 1440p, the minimum of 76 FPS is 84% of the average of 90 FPS, showing similar consistency. At 4K, the minimum of 42 FPS is 86% of the average of 49 FPS, demonstrating that frame pacing remains stable even at lower performance levels.