The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, presents a unique challenge for modern hardware. This analysis examines the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 processor paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 graphics card across a matrix of resolutions and settings. The data reveals a system that is heavily balanced toward high-refresh-rate 1080p and 1440p gaming, but which begins to show its limitations at 4K. The benchmark results provide a clear picture of where each component excels and where the pairing becomes the bottleneck.

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. Its configuration includes a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, supported by a 30 MB shared L3 cache. This substantial core count and high boost capability are reflected in its synthetic benchmarks, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and a single-core score of 5960. In the Passmark suite, it achieves a multithread score of 49682 and a single-thread score of 4689, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tested.

Given that The Technomancer was released in 2016, its engine is unlikely to be optimized for the high thread counts of modern processors. The game’s performance, however, remains robust at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 191 FPS, which is a clear indicator that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to maintain extremely high frame rates. The fact that the 1080p Low score is the highest in the entire measured dataset suggests that the CPU is not a limiting factor at this resolution and settings level. The processor’s strong single-core performance, evidenced by the Cinebench R15 single-core score of 600, is likely crucial here, as many games from this era rely heavily on a few threads.

When examining the scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 191 to 125. While this is a significant decrease, the absolute frame rate remains very high, indicating the CPU still has ample headroom. The data suggests that the CPU’s role is to provide a high-performance baseline that allows the RTX 3070 to operate without being starved of data. However, as the resolution increases and the GPU becomes more heavily tasked, the CPU’s relative influence on the final frame rate diminishes. The benchmark results show that even at 4K with Low settings, the system maintains an average of 69 FPS, which is a playable frame rate, but the performance scaling is now clearly dictated by the graphics card.

The processor’s cache hierarchy, with 3 MB of L2 per core and a shared 30 MB L3, is designed to reduce memory latency. The game’s engine, while older, can still benefit from this, as it may frequently access the same data. The performance data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 265 provides a stable and powerful foundation, ensuring that in less demanding graphical scenarios, the system can achieve exceptionally high frame rates. The 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms its high standing, though in this specific game, its capabilities are only fully utilized at the lowest resolutions.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, based on the Ampere architecture, features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its boost clock is rated at 1725 MHz. The card’s compute capabilities include 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 22214 in Passmark G3D and 112821 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs.

The GPU’s role in The Technomancer becomes increasingly dominant as resolution and settings are increased. At 1080p with Low settings, the GPU is likely underutilized, as the CPU can push frame rates to 191 FPS. However, as we move to 1440p High (82 FPS) and 4K High (45 FPS), the load shifts decisively to the GPU. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor to consider. At 4K with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 35. This significant performance hit suggests that the game may be exceeding the VRAM capacity or that the GPU’s raw compute power is insufficient for the high pixel count and visual fidelity.

The data shows a clear progression of diminishing returns as settings are raised. At 1440p, moving from Low (125 FPS) to Medium (96 FPS) is a 29 FPS drop, while moving from High (82 FPS) to Ultra (64 FPS) is an 18 FPS drop. This pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where the cost of each additional visual feature is relatively high. The RTX 3070’s performance in this game is strong enough for high-refresh-rate 1440p gaming, but it struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K on higher settings. The measured data shows that only the Low preset at 4K (69 FPS) achieves an average above 60 FPS.

The GPU’s memory bandwidth and capacity are its key assets for this workload. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is ample for the game’s textures and geometry, but the 8 GB capacity could be a limiting factor at 4K with Ultra settings, where the demand for texture data is highest. The benchmark results indicate that the RTX 3070 is a capable performer for its class, but for a game like The Technomancer, it is the primary determinant of performance at resolutions above 1080p. The card’s 61st percentile ranking reflects its position as a solid mid-to-high-range option, but not a top-tier one.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions provides a textbook example of how to identify a system’s bottleneck. By examining the performance at Low settings, where the graphical load is minimal, we can isolate the CPU’s performance ceiling. The frame rate drops from 191 FPS at 1080p to 125 FPS at 1440p, a 34.6% decrease. This drop is substantial, indicating that even at Low settings, the increased pixel count is beginning to tax the GPU. However, the still-high frame rates suggest the CPU is keeping up.

Moving to 4K Low, the average FPS falls to 69, which is a 44.8% drop from the 1440p figure. This severe scaling demonstrates that the GPU is now the primary limiting factor. The render resolution has quadrupled from 1080p to 4K, and the RTX 3070’s fill rate and compute power are being saturated. The data clearly shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at 4K, as the frame rate scales down with resolution in a way that is characteristic of a GPU-limited workload.

At High settings, the trend is similar but more pronounced. The FPS drops from 125 at 1080p to 82 at 1440p (a 34.4% decrease) and then to 45 at 4K (a 45.1% decrease from 1440p). The consistent pattern of large percentage drops when moving to 4K confirms that the RTX 3070 is the limiting component at that resolution. The CPU’s role is to provide a high enough frame rate ceiling that the GPU is always the first to saturate. The data indicates that this pairing is well-balanced for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where the CPU can push the GPU to its limits, but at 4K, the GPU’s performance ceiling is the definitive factor.

The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution also reveals the GPU’s workload. At 1080p, the FPS drops from 191 to 98, a 48.7% decrease. At 1440p, it drops from 125 to 64, a 48.8% decrease. At 4K, the drop is from 69 to 35, a 49.3% decrease. The consistency of these percentage drops across resolutions indicates that the relative cost of the Ultra settings is constant, and that the GPU is handling the increased graphical features in a linear fashion. This suggests that the game’s graphical settings have a predictable impact on performance, making it easy to tune for a target frame rate.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this system?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 191 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 69 FPS. At Medium settings, the average drops to 53 FPS, and at High and Ultra, it falls to 45 FPS and 35 FPS, respectively.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in synthetic tests?

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) and 0.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202).

Q: What is the performance difference between the RTX 3070 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT?

A: The RTX 3070 has an average benchmark score of 17208, which is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT's score of 17083.

Q: At 1440p, what is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 82 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 64 FPS, a difference of 18 FPS.

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

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 4K Low, the frame rate is 69 FPS, which is significantly lower than the 191 FPS at 1080p Low, showing that the increased resolution heavily taxes the graphics card.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is ranked 1179 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places the system in the 58.3rd percentile of all tested combinations, meaning it outperforms more than half of the systems tested but is not among the top performers. This ranking is a holistic measure of the system's ability to run the game across all tested resolutions and settings.

This mid-pack ranking is consistent with the component analysis. The CPU is a high-end processor, ranking in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, but the GPU is a mid-to-high-end card, ranking in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The combination of a very fast CPU with a moderately fast GPU results in a system that is not balanced for maximum 4K performance, but is instead optimized for high-refresh-rate gaming at lower resolutions. The ranking suggests that while the system is powerful, there are many other combinations that can achieve higher frame rates in this specific game, likely those with more powerful GPUs.

The rank of 1179 indicates that the system is in the upper half of the field. The data implies that the primary area for improvement would be the GPU, as a more powerful graphics card would likely yield a larger performance gain than a CPU upgrade, especially at 1440p and 4K resolutions. The system’s strong CPU ensures that it will not be a limiting factor in most scenarios, but the GPU prevents it from achieving top-tier status in this benchmark suite.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's target resolution and frame rate preference. For a flawless high-refresh-rate experience at 1080p, the High preset is an excellent choice, delivering an average of 125 FPS. This provides a significant visual upgrade over Low settings while maintaining a frame rate that is well above the threshold for smooth gameplay. The Low preset at 191 FPS is best for competitive play, but the High preset offers a better balance of visual fidelity and performance.

At 1440p, the High preset is the best option for a 60+ FPS experience, averaging 82 FPS. The Medium preset, at 96 FPS, is also a strong contender for those with 144Hz monitors, as it provides a higher frame rate while sacrificing some visual quality. The Ultra preset, at 64 FPS, is only recommended for users who prioritize maximum visual fidelity and have a 60Hz monitor, as it just barely stays above the 60 FPS threshold.

For 4K gaming, the options are more constrained. The Low preset is the only one that averages above 60 FPS, at 69 FPS. The Medium preset, at 53 FPS, is playable but may feel less smooth. The High and Ultra presets, at 45 FPS and 35 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a good experience, as the frame rates are too low for a responsive gameplay feel. Therefore, for the best experience at 4K, users should use the Low preset, or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p to enable higher quality settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is a complete breakdown of the measured average FPS for each resolution and settings combination.

1920x1080:

• Low: 191 FPS (average)
• Medium: 147 FPS (average), with a minimum of 125 FPS and a maximum of 169 FPS
• High: 125 FPS (average)
• Ultra: 98 FPS (average)

2560x1440:

• Low: 125 FPS (average)
• Medium: 96 FPS (average), with a minimum of 82 FPS and a maximum of 110 FPS
• High: 82 FPS (average)
• Ultra: 64 FPS (average)

3840x2160:

• Low: 69 FPS (average)
• Medium: 53 FPS (average), with a minimum of 45 FPS and a maximum of 61 FPS
• High: 45 FPS (average)
• Ultra: 35 FPS (average)

The data for Medium settings across all resolutions includes minimum and maximum FPS figures, providing a clearer picture of frame time consistency. For example, at 4K Medium, the minimum FPS is 45, which is the same as the average for High settings, indicating that the frame rate can fluctuate significantly. At 1080p Medium, the range is 125 to 169 FPS, showing a 44 FPS variance. This suggests that while the average frame rates are useful, users may experience occasional dips, particularly in more demanding scenes. The data overall shows a linear and predictable scaling of performance with both resolution and settings, making it straightforward to anticipate the system's behavior in different configurations.