The Technomancer

The Technomancer is listed in the database as an action RPG released on 2016-06-27. The measured FPS set on this page pairs the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile. The CPU is a 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake-HX processor with a 2.60 GHz base clock, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The GPU is an Ada Lovelace mobile chip with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The data is marked as measured, and the rows cover all listed presets at every resolution in this data set.

Resolution Scaling

At 1920x1080, the averages are 150 fps on Low, 115 fps on Medium, 99 fps on High, and 77 fps on Ultra. At 2560x1440, the same order produces 98 fps, 75 fps, 64 fps, and 50 fps. At 3840x2160, the averages fall to 54 fps, 41 fps, 35 fps, and 28 fps. The drop is consistent across every preset level: moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 removes a large chunk of frame rate, and moving again to 3840x2160 removes another. On Low, the sequence is 150, 98, 54. On Medium, it is 115, 75, 41. On High, it is 99, 64, 35. On Ultra, it is 77, 50, 28.

This pattern points to the GPU as the limiting component as resolution climbs. The CPU is identical in every row, so the large frame-rate declines across resolutions are driven by the pixel workload. At 1920x1080 Low, the system reaches 150 fps, which shows the CPU can feed a very high frame rate when the GPU has fewer pixels to process. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the same CPU and GPU combination drops to 28 fps. The RTX 4060 Mobile’s 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 11.61 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput are the hardware resources that scale with pixel count, and the measured data shows them being progressively saturated.

Only the Medium preset includes min/max values. At 1920x1080, Medium runs from 98 to 133 around the 115 average. At 2560x1440, Medium runs from 64 to 87 around the 75 average. At 3840x2160, Medium runs from 35 to 48 around the 41 average. The tighter range at higher resolutions is consistent with a GPU that becomes more consistently loaded as the resolution grows.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a strong mobile processor by synthetic benchmarks. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, a 2.60 GHz base clock, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 40642 and its single-core score is 5737. In PassMark, multi-thread is 47985 and single-thread is 4500. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 63173, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

Its nearest rivals are extremely close. The Intel Core i7-13790F is 0.1% behind, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G is 0.2% ahead, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 is 0.5% behind, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is 0.7% behind. These are small margins, so the CPU is not the part of this system that sets it apart from near-identical competitors in a meaningful way.

In The Technomancer, the CPU does not appear to be the main constraint at high resolution. At 1920x1080 Low, the system produces 150 fps. At 1920x1080 Ultra, it still produces 77 fps. If the core count or boost clock were the limiting factor, shifting resolution would not create the sharp frame-rate drops seen in the measured rows. Instead, the frame rate falls consistently as the GPU workload increases. The platform’s dual-channel DDR5 memory support provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and the CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, so memory and interface throughput are not obvious bottlenecks in this data.

The CPU’s 20-thread configuration gives it plenty of parallelism for an action RPG workload, and its 5.30 GHz boost helps with the single-threaded portions of a game engine. But the measured game results show that the ceiling in this pairing is the GPU once the resolution goes up. The CPU can deliver 150 fps when asked; the GPU cannot maintain that pace as pixel count increases.

FAQ

Q: What is the fastest measured row for this combo?

A: 1920x1080 Low, with an average of 150 fps.

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

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 63173 and sits at the 93rd percentile. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13790F, 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX.

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

A: The GPU has an average benchmark score of 22729 and sits at the 67th percentile. It is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, 1.3% behind the Intel Arc B580, and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile.

Q: What does 3840x2160 look like on all four presets?

A: At 3840x2160, Low averages 54 fps, Medium averages 41 fps with a min/max of 35/48, High averages 35 fps, and Ultra averages 28 fps.

Q: Which measured rows have triple-digit averages?

A: Only the 1920x1080 rows: Low at 150 fps and Medium at 115 fps.

Q: What is this pairing’s overall rank in The Technomancer?

A: It ranks 2257 out of 3696 tested combos.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this pairing at rank 2257 out of 3696 combos in The Technomancer. That puts it below the middle of the tested field. This is not a case of weak components. The CPU alone is at the 93rd percentile, and the GPU is at the 67th percentile. The in-game rank is lower than those standalone positions might suggest, which shows how much game-specific measured data can differ from synthetic averages.

The nearest-rival data reinforces the point. The CPU’s nearest rivals are all within a small margin of the Core Ultra 7 265HX: the largest difference in the list is 0.7%. The GPU’s nearest rivals are also tightly clustered, with the largest separation being 1.3% on either side of the RTX 4060 Mobile. A system built with any of those near-identical parts would likely fall into the same general rank region in this game. The rank of 2257 out of 3696 should therefore be read as a property of this measured system in The Technomancer, not as a broad statement about the parts being weak.

The measured data shows a pairing with a high-end CPU, a mid-to-high GPU, and a game-specific result that lands in the lower portion of the combo list. That combination of facts is useful for interpreting the actual frame rates rather than relying on component percentiles alone.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows create a clear hierarchy. At 1920x1080, Low gives 150 fps, Medium gives 115 fps, High gives 99 fps, and Ultra gives 77 fps. At 2560x1440, the order is 98 fps, 75 fps, 64 fps, and 50 fps. At 3840x2160, the order is 54 fps, 41 fps, 35 fps, and 28 fps.

If maximum image quality is the priority, 1920x1080 Ultra at 77 fps is the strongest measured preset. It is the only Ultra row above the 2560x1440 Ultra result of 50 fps, and it is far above the 3840x2160 Ultra result of 28 fps. If a higher pixel count matters more than the Ultra preset, 2560x1440 High at 64 fps is the pivot: it is faster than every 3840x2160 row in the data, and it uses a larger resolution than any 1920x1080 row. For users who want more headroom at 2560x1440, Medium at 75 fps is the better choice.

At 3840x2160, the data is straightforward. Low at 54 fps is the fastest 4K row. Medium at 41 fps is the compromise row, with a min/max of 35/48. High at 35 fps and Ultra at 28 fps exist in the data, but they trade frame rate for preset level. The measured Medium ranges also help: at 1920x1080 Medium, the spread is 98 to 133; at 2560x1440 Medium, it is 64 to 87; at 3840x2160 Medium, it is 35 to 48. Lower resolutions allow more spread because the GPU is not saturated in every scene. Higher resolutions compress the frame-rate range as the GPU becomes the dominant limit.

Overall, the data supports two main recommendations: 1920x1080 Ultra for users who want the highest preset quality, and 2560x1440 High for users who prefer more resolution while keeping a solid average frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The table below lists the exact measured rows from the data set. Min/max values are only present for the Medium preset.

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

|---|---|---|---|---|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 150 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 115 | 98 | 133 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 99 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 77 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 98 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 75 | 64 | 87 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 64 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 50 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 54 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 41 | 35 | 48 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 35 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 28 | — | — |