The Technomancer

The Technomancer is a 2016 Action RPG that, on paper, should be trivial for a modern flagship mobile platform like the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX paired with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. The data, however, tells a more nuanced story. While the raw frame rates are high at lower resolutions, the combination exhibits significant scaling challenges at 4K, revealing a bottleneck that is not purely GPU-bound. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, contextualizes the ranking, and provides actionable settings recommendations based solely on the provided data.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in The Technomancer?

A: The combo ranks 588th out of 2825 tested combinations, placing it in the top 21% of all systems tested for this specific game.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13790F?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Core Ultra 7 265HX scoring 63,173 and the Core i7-13790F scoring 63,080. The delta is a mere 0.1% in favor of the Core Ultra 7, making them performance equals in general CPU benchmarks.

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achieved in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 234, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The lowest average FPS recorded is 43, at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the RTX 4090's performance stand out compared to its nearest rivals according to average benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 4090's average benchmark score is 60,347. It is effectively tied with the Intel Arc Pro A60, which has a score of 60,326 and a 0% delta. It is 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, which scores 61,896.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium settings preset?

A: For the Medium preset, the minimum FPS is 55 at 3840x2160, 100 at 2560x1440, and 153 at 1920x1080.

Q: What is the boost clock speed of the CPU and the memory size of the GPU in this combo?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is equipped with 24 GB of GDDR6X memory.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the undisputed heavyweight in this pairing, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture. Its specifications are substantial: a boost clock of 2520 MHz, 16,384 shading units, and a massive 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. These specs make it a powerhouse for high-resolution and high-fidelity rendering, which is exactly where The Technomancer's demands should peak.

Looking at the measured FPS data, the GPU's influence is most apparent at 2560x1440 and 1920x1080. At 1440p, the average FPS scales from 78 on Ultra to 153 on Low. This shows the GPU has significant headroom at this resolution. At 1080p, this headroom becomes even more pronounced, with the Low preset yielding an average of 234 FPS. The GPU is clearly capable of far more than the game demands at these settings.

However, the RTX 4090's role shifts dramatically at 3840x2160. Here, the demands of the resolution stress the GPU to its limits, but the performance drop is steep. The average FPS falls from 100 at 1440p High to 55 at 4K High, a 45% reduction. This is a significant hit that suggests the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor, but the data hints that the CPU may also be contributing to the bottleneck. The 4K Medium setting shows a minimum FPS of 55, which is the exact same as the 4K High average. This clustering of performance at the lower end indicates that the system's frame pacing is being constrained, likely due to the CPU's inability to feed the GPU fast enough in this older title. The RTX 4090's raw power is evident, but this game's engine seems unable to fully utilize it at lower resolutions, and at 4K, the system's overall throughput is the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 achieves a rank of 588 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places the system in the 79th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning it outperforms the majority of systems. This is a strong showing, but given the caliber of the components, one might expect a higher placement.

The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, performs well in general compute benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 63,173 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13790F, scores 63,080, a delta of just 0.1%, showing they are statistically tied. Interestingly, it also holds a 0.7% advantage over its sibling, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX, which scores 62,738.

The GPU, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, also performs well. Its average benchmark score is 60,347, putting it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are professional workstation cards, like the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, which scores 61,896 and is 2.5% faster in these aggregate benchmarks.

Despite the strong individual performance of both components, the combo rank of 588 suggests that their combined potential is not fully realized in The Technomancer. The game's engine, released in 2016, may not be optimized for the modern architecture of the CPU, or the high frame rates at lower resolutions cause a CPU bottleneck that limits the overall score. The data shows that while the system is fast, it is not in the top tier of performers for this specific title, indicating a potential mismatch between the hardware's capabilities and the game's engine limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The FPS data provides a clear picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. The numbers are as follows:

• 1920x1080 (1080p):
• Low: 234 avg FPS
• Medium: 180 avg FPS (min 153, max 207)
• High: 153 avg FPS
• Ultra: 120 avg FPS

• 2560x1440 (1440p):
• Low: 153 avg FPS
• Medium: 117 avg FPS (min 100, max 135)
• High: 100 avg FPS
• Ultra: 78 avg FPS

• 3840x2160 (4K):
• Low: 84 avg FPS
• Medium: 65 avg FPS (min 55, max 74)
• High: 55 avg FPS
• Ultra: 43 avg FPS

At 1080p, the system is clearly CPU-bound. The jump from Low to Medium is a 54 FPS drop, and from Medium to High, another 27 FPS drop. This large performance hit from settings changes indicates the CPU is maxing out its ability to process game logic and draw calls, while the GPU has plenty of spare capacity. The 234 FPS average at Low is well beyond the refresh rate of most monitors, so the CPU is the limiting factor here.

At 1440p, the scaling is more linear, with a roughly 20-25% performance drop for each settings increase. This suggests the load is becoming more balanced between the CPU and GPU. The 153 FPS at Low is still very high, but the GPU is starting to take on more work, evidenced by the 100 FPS average at High.

At 4K, the GPU is now the primary bottleneck, but the system still struggles to maintain high frame rates. The 84 FPS at Low is respectable, but the 55 FPS at High and 43 FPS at Ultra show the cost of high resolution. The minimum FPS of 55 on Medium suggests that even at this preset, the system can experience significant frame dips, likely due to CPU-related frame pacing issues when the GPU is under heavy load.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop between resolutions is a key indicator of where the bottleneck lies. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings results in a 53 FPS drop (153 to 100), a reduction of roughly 35%. This is a substantial decrease, but it is typical for a GPU-bound workload.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings is even more severe. The average FPS drops from 100 to 55, a reduction of 45%. This steep decline suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and raw compute power are being maxed out at 4K. However, it also highlights a potential issue with the CPU. In a perfectly GPU-bound scenario, the frame rate might be expected to scale more predictably with the pixel count. The 4K resolution has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, but the frame rate does not drop to a quarter. It drops by nearly half.

This pattern indicates a mixed bottleneck. At 1080p, the CPU is the clear limiting factor. At 4K, the GPU is the primary limiter, but the CPU's architecture seems to struggle with the game's draw calls, preventing the system from achieving higher frame rates. The 4K Ultra preset's 43 FPS average is a clear sign that this combination, while powerful, does not scale linearly in this game. The game's engine appears to have a performance ceiling that the modern components cannot break through, resulting in a hard stop around 55-65 FPS at high settings in 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's preference for visual fidelity versus frame rate.

• For 4K (3840x2160): The Ultra preset is not recommended, as it yields an average of only 43 FPS, which is not smooth for most players. The High preset offers a more playable 55 FPS average, but the Medium preset provides a better balance. At 65 FPS average, Medium is the best option for a playable 4K experience, offering a significant 10 FPS improvement over High. The 55 FPS minimum at Medium is the same as the High average, suggesting that the Medium preset helps stabilize frame pacing. For a 60 FPS target, Medium is the only viable preset. If you have a VRR-capable display, High's 55 FPS average might be acceptable, but Medium is the safer choice.

• For 1440p (2560x1440): The High preset delivers an excellent 100 FPS average, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. If you have a 144Hz display, the Low preset is not necessary, as High provides a smooth experience. The Ultra preset, at 78 FPS, is also very playable and offers the best visual quality. For the most balanced experience, High is the recommended setting. It provides a high frame rate while maintaining good visual fidelity. The Medium preset's 117 FPS is a good option if you want to prioritize frame rate without sacrificing too many visual settings.

• For 1080p (1920x1080): The system is heavily CPU-bound here. The Ultra preset's 120 FPS average is a high frame rate, but it is only half of the Low preset's 234 FPS. The performance cost of Ultra is high for the visual benefit. For the smoothest experience, the High preset at 153 FPS is a great choice, providing a significant increase over Ultra while still looking good. If you have a 240Hz monitor, the Low preset's 234 FPS will be the only way to get close to that refresh rate, but it will come with a significant visual downgrade. The Medium preset at 180 FPS is a solid middle ground for high-refresh-rate gaming. Ultimately, High is the recommended preset for 1080p, as it offers the best combination of frame rate and visual quality without hitting the severe CPU bottleneck seen at lower settings.