The Technomancer

Playing The Technomancer with an Intel Core Ultra 7 265 CPU paired with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a datapoint that is measurably lopsided: the processor is a current-generation desktop part with 20 cores and a 5.30 GHz boost, while the GPU is a Turing-based card from mid-2019. The measured performance in The Technomancer reflects this imbalance, with the GPU acting as the clear constraint at every resolution tested. The average FPS described in the dataset are all derived from direct measurement, not simulation, so they represent what the hardware combination actually delivers in this action RPG.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER achieves rank 3,157 out of 3,696 tested GPU/CPU pairs in The Technomancer. That puts it below the 50th percentile; only about 14% of all tested combinations perform worse. In other words, this is a low-end performance pairing for this game. The rank is largely driven by the GPU's modest compute and memory specifications, because the CPU side is substantially outclassed by the GPU in this combination.

The CPU alone sits at the 93rd percentile among all processors tested, with an average benchmark score of 64,640 across Cinebench and Passmark. That is a strong result for a desktop part. The GPU, however, ranks at only the 53rd percentile globally, with an average benchmark score of 12,986. The delta between these two numbers is what explains the combination's position near the bottom of the table: the CPU is a candidate for high-end gaming, but the GPU is only mid-range today. The measured FPS data supports that interpretation, as the game's frame rate drops dramatically as resolution increases, and the CPU never becomes the limiting component.

The fact that the GPU is a 1660 SUPER, which carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and a 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, is more relevant than the CPU's specifications for this title. The game's 2016 release predates the GPU by more than three years, so it is not a demanding workload by modern standards, yet the GPU still produces low frame rates at 4K, showing that it is the weak link.

FAQ

*Q: Can this combo run The Technomancer smoothly at 1080p?*

A: At 1920x1080 the measured average FPS reaches 56 on Ultra, 72 on High, 84 on Medium and 110 on Low. The High and Medium presets both move above 60 FPS on average, so a smooth experience is achievable at 1080p.

Q: Is 2560x1440 playable on this system?

A: The highest average FPS at 1440p is 72 on Low, with High gaining 47 FPS, Medium 55 FPS, and Ultra 37 FPS. The average frame rate drops below 60 FPS on High and above, so a smooth 1440p session would require reducing the quality to Low or possibly Medium.

Q: What about 4K performance?

A: At 3840x2160 the results are consistently low: low preset average 39 FPS, High 26 FPS, Medium 30 FPS (minimum 26, maximum 35), and High Ultra 20 FPS. No setting reaches even 30 FPS on the medium and high presets, so the card is not a 4K part for this title.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest crystal peers?

A: The GPU is within a few points of several nearby competitors. The nearest rival is an RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, with a delta of 0.4% from the 1660 SUPER's average score. An average Radeon RX 580 has a delta of 0.5% to the GPU, while a Tesla M2090 is -0.7%. All are within roughly one percent, putting the 1660 SUPER in a narrow performance band.

Q: Does the CPU have enough headroom for this game?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 is at the 93rd percentile across all tested processors. Its 20-core architecture and 5.30 GHz boost are far above any demand the game places on it. The measured FPS scaling does not indicate any CPU limitation; the GPU is fully determinative.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All average frame rates are measured, not estimated. The data shows a consistent drop from 1080p to 4K, with the largest FPS values appearing at the lowest preset.

1920x1080

• High: 72 FPS
• Low: 110 FPS
• Medium: 84 FPS (min 72, max 97)
• Ultra: 56 FPS

2560x1440

• High: 47 FPS
• Low: 72 FPS
• Medium: 55 FPS (min 47, max 63)
• Ultra: 37 FPS

3840x2160

• High: 26 FPS
• Low: 39 FPS
• Medium: 30 FPS (min 26, max 35)
• Ultra: 20 FPS

Those numbers reveal that the difference between the lowest and highest presets at a fixed resolution is far smaller than the difference between resolutions at a fixed preset. For example, at 1080p, High delivers 72 FPS while Ultra gives 56 FPS; at 4K, the same two presets give 26 FPS and 20 FPS respectively. The gap is much larger going from 1080p to 4K on a single preset: 56 to 20 FPS on the Ultra preset, and 72 to 26 on High. This means scaling the preset produces only moderate changes, while scaling the internal quantum has far more impact.

Resolution Scaling and the Limiting Component

Examining how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K points directly to the GPU as the limiting factor. At 1080p High, the test produces 72 FPS. At 1440p High it causes to 47 FPS, and at 4K High it moves to 26 FPS. The same pattern seen across all presets: 110, 72, 39 for the Low setting; 84, 55, and 30 for Medium; 56, 37, and 20 for Ultra. The FPS falls roughly proportionally to the number of pixels, and the numbers do not show any flattening that might indicate a CPU limit. If the CPU were the constraining part, the frame rate would remain closer, but it does not. The 20-core CPU at the 93rd percentile has a huge compute headroom; the GPU's 1408 shading units and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are overmatched by the 8.3 million pixels needed at 4K.

This is the standard pattern for a GPU-bound title. The game is from 2016, but even at that era's graphics workload, the GTX 1660 SUPER is not enough to hit 60 FPS at 4K. The data does not include any CPU overclocking or GPU overclocking; the default clocks are used. The CPU boost of 5.30 GHz is the stock turbo, so the part is not undervolted but its 65 W TDP keeps it cool, but it is never the waiting partner.

Settings Recommendations

The best measured combo per resolution is as follows. When the user targets a 60 FPS average, the only setting that achieves it at 1080p is High? Actually no, at 1080p, both Low and High and - Medium cause over 84-110 FPS. The lowest setting that stays above 60 is Medium? Actually all except Ultra at 56. So the recommendation is: high retains a great visual balance at 110 FPS for Ultra? Wait: At 1080p, the highest measurable FPS is on the Low preset (Low) but for best quality while still being very smooth, the 84 FPS of Medium is strong; High brings 72 FPS. The Ultra preset at 56 is still over 55 but just under 60. So for a 1080p setup, the High preset gives 72 FPS, which is above 60, and High also has better texture lighting than Medium. The data does not measure visual difference, but if the goal is to keep the 60 FPS indicator, High is the best high-quality preset. For 1440p, none of the presets reach 60 on average (High 47, Medium 55, Low 72). Low is the only setting that exceeds 60 FPS at 72 average; Medium comes close at 55. A user who wants an accurate 1440p could select Medium and accept an average of 55, but the safest to stay above 60 is Low.

For 4K, no preset reaches 30 FPS on average: the highest is Low at 39 FPS. That is a very rough experience, so the usual choice would be to reduce resolution to 1440p. The data does not show any once-capable settings, only these presets, so the interpretation is that 1080p High/Medium are the recommended points.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake part from the Core Ultra 200 series, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost of 5.30 GHz. Its L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 30 MB shared. The CPU supports DDR5 dual-channel memory and integrates an Arc Xe-LPG 32EU GPU, but the pair under test uses a separate GTX 1660 SUPER. At the 93rd percentile, the CPU is overloaded for this game, where a single-core workload may not not be heavy.

Looking at the game's patterns: The CPU is not the limiting component. At 1080p Low, even the GTX 1660 is maxing out the frame, and the CPU can easily push the 26 FPS of its pure physics calculation. The benchmark scores show a Cinebench R23 multi-core of 42,216 and a single-core of 4,220, which are high. The Technomancer is an action RPG with crowd effects, but its 2016 engine is likely not using more than four to eight threads. The huge number of cores (20) and threads (20) is irrelevant here; the 5.30 GHz is useful for single-threaded logic. At the 93rd percentile, the CPU has ample capacity, and the measured FPS does not match the game to GPU-weak itself. The CPU is the strong component, but it cannot help the GPU at 4K.

When you compare resolutions, the FPS does not stay at a level dictated by the CPU; it falls sharply as pixel count rises. That is a classical sign that the frame time is set by the GPU and the CPU is not the workload. The CPU's 65 W TDP and 20 cores show the part is not underpowered, but it is overkill for this title.

GPU Role

The GPU is a 6 GB GeForce 16-series card based on the TU116 chip. It has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and a base clock of 1536 MHz, with a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The memory is GDDR6 running at 1750 MHz, and the bus is 192 bits wide, leading to a theoretical bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. It is a dual-slot card, with a 1x 8-pin connector, rated for 125 W. The GPU sits at the 53rd percentile globally, which is below the average for modern GPUs.

The GTX 1660 SUPER is really not enough to drive this 2016 action RPG at high frame rates on modern resolutions. In the measured data, the 6 GB frame buffer is never stated as the bottleneck, but the 4K results are consistently 20–39 FPS, which are all below the 60 mark. The FP32 power of 5.027 TFLOPS is not large for this generation, and the memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is moderate for the 154:1 pixel count. The GPU's performance decreases without a network; each one-level increase scales down at nearly the same ratio across resolutions, which is typical of a GPU that is the absolute constraint.

In the game's credits, the nearest rival GPU is the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile with 0.4% higher average score, and the AMD Radeon RX 580 is also at +0.4%, both are roughly equivalent. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 is -0.7%, so the 1660 SUPER falls between those. This band of competitors all have similar frame output. The card cannot access DXR (day one), but it has no tensor cores; the Technomancer is not a ray-traced title, so this does not matter.

In terms of manual configuration, the GPU's clock boost is 1785 MHz, which is the highest core clock listed. The memory clock is 1750 MHz, not variable. The data shows no other scaling limitations, so the 1660 SUPER is fully used at 4K.

Measured FPS at Different Resolutions

For those who want the exact measured numbers again, the table shows the quantities. The average FPS values are rounded to the nearest integer. The test yields a1instance of 20-30 FPS, which is definitely not playable for steady combat in the Technomancer, according to the 30-35[4. At 1080p, the lowest preset should be 110 FPS, so a competitive edge is there. The 16-core setup is not the one; the motherboard has no stability issues.

All the numbers show a monotonic decline: size increases, as the resolution increases. The GPU's VRAM 6 GB and bandwidth 336 GB/s aren’t the limitation; the GPU's raw compute