The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, presents a fascinating case study in how modern high-end hardware interacts with an older game engine. The measured performance for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT reveals distinct scaling behaviors across resolutions and settings. This analysis breaks down the data to understand which component is driving the experience and how to best configure the game for a smooth playthrough.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock of 2.40 GHz can boost up to 5.30 GHz, and this high single-core boost is critical for a game like The Technomancer, which is from an era where game engines often relied heavily on one or two primary threads. The processor's substantial L3 cache of 30 MB shared helps keep frequently accessed data close, reducing latency that could otherwise bottleneck frame delivery.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Ultra 7 265 demonstrates robust multi-threaded prowess with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, while its single-core score of 5960 in the same test indicates strong per-thread performance. This combination suggests the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU in most scenarios. However, the game's age means its engine likely cannot utilize all 20 threads effectively. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system reaches 251 FPS, which indicates a scenario where the CPU is not the limiting factor, as the GPU has less work to do. The CPU's PassMark single-thread score of 4689 and multi-thread score of 49682 place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a top-tier part that should not be a bottleneck.

The relationship between the CPU and this game's results is more about ensuring a high minimum frame rate than achieving a high average. While the average FPS at lower resolutions is high, the lack of min FPS data for most settings makes it difficult to quantify the worst-case stutters. The processor's 20 threads ensure that any background tasks or engine-level physics calculations, which might be spread across a few threads, will not starve the main game thread of resources. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU provides a sufficiently strong platform, allowing the GPU to become the primary performance determinant as resolution and graphical fidelity increase.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a high-end graphics card built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring the Navi 31 chip. It comes equipped with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, offering 800.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. This is a significant asset for The Technomancer, which, even by 2016 standards, could feature high-resolution textures that consume substantial VRAM. The card's boost clock of 2394 MHz and 5376 shading units provide immense compute throughput, evidenced by its 51.48 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GPU's TDP of 300 W indicates a power-hungry component, but the benchmark results show it delivers the necessary performance to justify it.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU's role becomes increasingly clear as resolution and settings increase. At 1080p Low, the GPU is likely not working at full capacity, yielding 251 FPS. When moving to 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 46, which strongly suggests the GPU is now the primary bottleneck, working as hard as it can to render the higher pixel count and more demanding effects. The 20 GB VRAM buffer is unlikely to be exceeded at 4K Ultra in this title, preventing potential texture streaming issues that could cause severe stutters or frame drops. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 29009 places it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, which may seem low, but this is relative to a database that includes professional and workstation cards.

The data implies that the RX 7900 XT is a very capable card for this game, but its performance is not uniform across all settings. For instance, at 1440p High, it achieves 108 FPS, which is excellent. However, the jump to 4K High results in a 59 FPS average, a 45% performance drop. This indicates a steep scaling curve that is typical for a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. The card's raw power is on display, but the game's engine seems to have a significant performance cost associated with the Ultra preset, which brings the 4K average down to a less playable 46 FPS.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions is the most revealing data in this analysis. At 1080p High, the system produces 164 FPS. Moving to 1440p High, the frame rate drops to 108 FPS, a 34% reduction. The jump to 4K High yields 59 FPS, which is another 45% reduction from the 1440p figure. This pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases is a classic sign of a GPU-bound workload. The CPU is powerful enough to handle the game's logic at all these resolutions, but the GPU is working progressively harder to render more pixels.

The trend is consistent across all settings. For Low settings, the FPS goes from 251 at 1080p to 164 at 1440p (a 35% drop) and then to 90 at 4K (a 45% drop). This consistent scaling suggests that the limiting component is clearly the GPU, as the CPU's workload does not change with resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat regardless of resolution. The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is sufficiently fast to keep up with the RX 7900 XT, even at 1080p where the CPU load is typically highest relative to the GPU.

The most significant drop occurs from 1440p to 4K across all settings, showing that 4K is a heavy load for this combination. The average FPS at 4K Ultra is 46, which is only about 36% of the 1080p Low performance. This implies that for a consistent 60 FPS experience at 4K, the user would need to rely on High settings or below. The data points to the GPU as the definitive bottleneck at 4K, while at 1080p and 1440p, the system has enough headroom to maintain very high frame rates, indicating the CPU and GPU are well-balanced for those resolutions.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For a standard 60 FPS target, 4K High is the only viable 4K preset, with an average of 59 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K averages 69 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, while Low averages 90 FPS and Ultra falls below the target at 46 FPS. Therefore, for 4K, Medium offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, as it stays well above the 60 FPS threshold with some headroom for demanding scenes.

At 1440p, the user has more flexibility. The Ultra preset averages 84 FPS, which is above 60 FPS and provides the highest visual quality. While High offers 108 FPS and Medium 126 FPS, the jump to Ultra is substantial for a game like this, and the 84 FPS average is still smooth. For those with high refresh rate monitors, Medium or High would be preferable to push frame rates towards 120+ FPS. The 1440p Low preset at 164 FPS is excessive for most displays, making it a less practical choice.

At 1080p, the CPU and GPU combination is so powerful that even the Ultra preset averages 128 FPS, which is excellent for high refresh rate gaming. The Medium preset at 193 FPS and High at 164 FPS offer even more headroom. Given the high performance, the Ultra preset is the recommended choice for 1080p, as it provides the best visual experience without sacrificing playability. The data shows that the system can easily handle the game's maximum settings at 1080p, making it the ideal resolution for this title if visual quality is the primary concern. However, for a more balanced experience across all resolutions, Medium settings provide the most consistent frame rates above 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 485th out of 2825 tested combinations for The Technomancer. This places it in the top 17% of all tested hardware pairings, which is a strong showing for a modern high-end setup. While this is a good rank, it is not at the very top, which suggests that there are other combinations that can achieve higher frame rates, likely those with more powerful GPUs that can handle 4K Ultra settings more effectively.

The rank of 485 indicates that this is a very capable system for this game, but it is not the absolute best. Given that the combo achieves a 59 FPS average at 4K High, it is clear that it is a high-performing setup. The percentile for the CPU is 93, and the GPU is at 55, but the combination's rank is better than the GPU's percentile might suggest. This implies that the game is not solely reliant on raw GPU power, and the strong CPU helps push the system's ranking higher. The data shows that this combo is significantly better than the average tested setup, providing a high-quality experience in The Technomancer.

The ranking also implies a level of balance. While a top-tier GPU might achieve higher scores, the 265's strong multi-threading and high clocks ensure that frame times are consistent. The 485th rank out of 2825 is a solid result, and it means that most other combinations will not be able to match the performance at 1440p and 4K with high settings. The data indicates that users with this setup can expect a top-tier experience, though there is headroom for improvement if one were to pair the CPU with a more powerful GPU.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run The Technomancer at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 46 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is below the common 60 FPS target, so while it is playable, it may not be smooth enough for all users.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo?

A: Based on the data, 2560x1440 offers the best balance, with an average of 108 FPS on High settings and 84 FPS on Ultra. This provides high visual quality while maintaining a frame rate well above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640. It is 0.3% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438) and 0.7% faster than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202), while being 0.3% slower than the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT has an average benchmark score of 13745. It is 1.5% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT (13543), but 0.5% slower than both the AMD Radeon 660M (13812) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13821).

Q: What is the performance jump from 1080p to 1440p on High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 High, the system averages 164 FPS. When moving to 2560x1440 High, the average drops to 108 FPS, a 34% reduction in performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck at 4K?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K. As resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, the FPS drops significantly (e.g., from 164 to 59 on High settings), while the CPU's workload remains relatively constant. The GPU struggles to render the higher pixel count.

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

The following table details the exact average FPS measurements for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT in The Technomancer. For Medium settings, the minimum and maximum FPS were also recorded.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 46 | N/A | N/A |

| | High | 59 | N/A | N/A |

| | Medium | 69 | 59 | 80 |

| | Low | 90 | N/A | N/A |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 84 | N/A | N/A |

| | High | 108 | N/A | N/A |

| | Medium | 126 | 107 | 145 |

| | Low | 164 | N/A | N/A |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 128 | N/A | N/A |

| | High | 164 | N/A | N/A |

| | Medium | 193 | 164 | 222 |

| | Low | 251 | N/A | N/A |

The data shows a clear hierarchy, with performance decreasing as resolution and settings increase. The Medium preset is the only one with recorded min/max FPS, indicating a more detailed analysis was performed at that level. At 4K Medium, the min FPS of 59 matches the average FPS of the High preset, suggesting that Medium may offer a more stable experience. The jump from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across all settings, while the jump from 1440p to 4K is more severe, particularly on the Ultra preset, which drops from 84 to 46 FPS.