The Technomancer

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is a 20-core, 20-thread mobile processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 55 W TDP. The chip carries 30 MB of shared L3 cache, plus 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. This is a high-end mobile part, sitting in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The benchmark data shows this CPU is a strong performer in synthetic tests. In Cinebench R23, it scores 40,642 multi-core and 5,737 single-core. The multi-core result is particularly telling: it reflects the ability to feed a GPU with draw calls and physics data in a game like The Technomancer, which is an Action RPG from 2016. For a game of that era, the CPU's single-thread performance is more than adequate, and the 20-core count provides substantial headroom for background tasks or streaming while gaming.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the 265HX holds its own. Its average benchmark score of 63,173 is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13790F (63,080) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (62,738). It trails the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G by 0.2% (63,331) and is 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (62,839). These deltas are small, meaning the 265HX is effectively in the same performance class as these chips. The practical takeaway: this CPU is not the bottleneck in The Technomancer at any resolution tested.

In the measured FPS data, the game's performance scales more with resolution and settings than with any observable CPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 166 FPS average; at 4K Ultra, it drops to 31 FPS. The 265HX's single-thread score of 5,737 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can handle the game's logic and AI routines without stalling the frame pipeline. The game's release date of 2016 means it was designed for much older, slower CPUs, so the 265HX is far beyond the required threshold. The data shows no scenario where CPU performance is the limiting factor; even at 1080p Low, the frame rate is high but not CPU-bound to the point of instability.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture GPU on a 5 nm process, featuring 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock is 907 MHz with a boost clock of 1425 MHz, and memory runs at 1500 MHz (24 Gbps effective). The GPU has 4,608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, plus 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores. It delivers 13.13 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 68.40 GPixel/s.

This GPU sits in the 75th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 29,928 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945, delta -0.1%) and the RTX 2080 Ti (29,783, delta +0.5%). It is slightly behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095, delta -0.6%) and the RX 6700 (30,433, delta -1.7%). These are desktop-class comparisons, which is notable for a mobile part; the RTX 5070 Mobile is performing at a level that matches previous-generation high-end desktop GPUs.

In The Technomancer, the GPU is the primary driver of performance differences across settings. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for this 2016 title, which was designed for GPUs with far less memory. At 4K Ultra, the game drops to 31 FPS average, which suggests the GPU is fully saturated by the combination of high resolution and maxed settings. The memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s is ample for the game's textures and geometry; the bottleneck at 4K Ultra is more likely the raw shading throughput, given the modest boost clock of 1425 MHz.

The RTX 5070 Mobile's FP32 throughput of 13.13 TFLOPS is a key indicator. The Technomancer is not a ray-traced title, so the RT cores are largely idle, but the traditional raster workload benefits from the high shading unit count. The 48 ROPs are a potential constraint at 4K, where fill-rate demands are highest. This explains why the FPS drops from 60 at 4K Low to 39 at 4K High: the GPU is struggling with the increased pixel shading and texture work, not with memory capacity.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of scaling across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 166 at 1080p, to 109 at 1440p, to 60 at 4K. That is a drop of 34% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 45% from 1440p to 4K. At High settings, the progression is 109 FPS at 1080p, 71 at 1440p, and 39 at 4K — a 35% drop, then a 45% drop. At Medium settings, the numbers are 128 FPS at 1080p, 83 at 1440p, and 46 at 4K, with minimum FPS of 108, 71, and 39 respectively. At Ultra, the values are 85, 56, and 31.

These scaling factors are consistent across settings, which indicates a GPU-bound scenario at all resolutions. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 34-35%, and from 1440p to 4K it is about 45-46%. This is the expected behavior for a GPU-limited workload: doubling the pixel count (1080p to 4K is roughly 4x the pixels) results in a frame rate that drops by approximately 64% at Low settings (166 to 60) and 64% at High settings (109 to 39). The consistency of these ratios confirms that the RTX 5070 Mobile is the limiting component, not the CPU.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would plateau at lower resolutions, showing little improvement from 1080p to 1440p. The data shows the opposite: FPS increases significantly at lower resolutions, which means the GPU has headroom to render more frames when pixel count is reduced. The 265HX is clearly not holding back the GPU, even at 1080p Low where the frame rate is highest. The game's 2016 engine likely has CPU overhead limits, but the measured FPS of 166 at 1080p Low suggests the CPU is still providing enough data to keep the GPU busy.

The min FPS data at Medium settings also supports this interpretation. At 1080p Medium, the min is 108 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 71 FPS; at 4K Medium, it is 39 FPS. The min-to-avg ratio is consistent (about 84% at 1080p, 86% at 1440p, 85% at 4K), which indicates stable frame pacing without CPU-induced stutters. A CPU bottleneck would show more erratic min FPS, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed.

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

The measured data provides four settings presets at each resolution: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. The recommendation depends on the target resolution and the desired frame rate.

At 1080p, all presets are playable. Low averages 166 FPS, Medium 128 FPS, High 109 FPS, and Ultra 85 FPS. For a fast-paced Action RPG, any of these is sufficient for a smooth experience. The best balance is High: it delivers 109 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold, and it offers significantly better visual quality than Low or Medium. Ultra at 85 FPS is also viable if visual fidelity is the priority, but the 24 FPS drop from High to Ultra is substantial for a 2016 game that may not show a proportional visual improvement.

At 1440p, the choices narrow. Low averages 109 FPS, Medium 83 FPS, High 71 FPS, and Ultra 56 FPS. High is the sweet spot here: 71 FPS average is above 60, and it provides a good balance of detail and performance. Medium at 83 FPS is also a strong option if the user prefers higher frame rates over visual quality. Ultra at 56 FPS is borderline; it is playable but may feel less smooth during combat. Low is not recommended because the visual quality drop is noticeable, and the FPS gain over Medium is only 26 FPS.

At 4K, the options are more constrained. Low averages 60 FPS, Medium 46 FPS, High 39 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. Low is the only preset that maintains a 60 FPS average, which is the minimum for a comfortable experience. Medium at 46 FPS is playable but with visible frame pacing issues (min FPS 39). High and Ultra are below 40 FPS, which is generally too low for an Action RPG where timing matters. The recommendation at 4K is to use Low settings to maintain playability, or drop to 1440p and use High for a better experience.

Overall, the best experience per the measured rows is 1080p High or 1440p High, depending on the display. Both deliver above 70 FPS average with good visual quality. For users with a 4K display, the data suggests using 4K Low or scaling down to 1440p for a more consistent frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile ranks 2,040 out of 3,696 tested combos in The Technomancer. This puts it in the middle of the pack, at roughly the 55th percentile (calculated from rank divided by total combos). This is a notable result given the hardware's individual performance: the CPU is in the 93rd percentile and the GPU is in the 75th percentile, but the combo rank is lower than either component's percentile.

The discrepancy between component percentiles and combo rank suggests that The Technomancer is not particularly demanding on the CPU, so the 265HX's high-end capabilities do not translate into a proportional FPS advantage. The game is GPU-bound, as the resolution scaling analysis shows, so the combo rank is determined almost entirely by the RTX 5070 Mobile's performance. The GPU's 75th percentile ranking aligns more closely with the combo's 55th percentile, but the gap still indicates that the game may not be fully utilizing the GPU's features or that the 2016 engine has inherent performance ceilings.

Compared to other combos in the database, this rank of 2,040 means there are 1,656 combos that perform better and 2,040 that perform worse. The middle-of-the-pack position is reasonable for a mobile GPU that matches desktop RTX 3070 Ti performance, but it also reflects the game's age. The Technomancer was released in 2016, and modern hardware may not scale linearly with its engine's capabilities. The data shows that this combo is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but it does not dominate the ranking because the game's optimization limits the potential.

For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in the database are all desktop parts (RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 2080 Ti, RX 6800, RX 6700), and the RTX 5070 Mobile's average score is within 1.7% of each. This suggests that the combo rank is not a reflection of GPU weakness but rather of the game's specific performance profile. The 265HX's CPU performance is overkill for this title, so the combo rank is effectively a measure of the GPU's rasterization capability in a 2016 Action RPG.

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

The measured FPS data for The Technomancer with this combo is as follows:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 166 FPS average
• Medium: 128 FPS average, 108 FPS min, 147 FPS max
• High: 109 FPS average
• Ultra: 85 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 109 FPS average
• Medium: 83 FPS average, 71 FPS min, 96 FPS max
• High: 71 FPS average
• Ultra: 56 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 60 FPS average
• Medium: 46 FPS average, 39 FPS min, 53 FPS max
• High: 39 FPS average
• Ultra: 31 FPS average

The data shows a clear hierarchy: at every resolution, Low is the fastest preset and Ultra is the slowest. The gaps between presets are substantial. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 81 FPS (166 vs 85). At 1440p, the gap is 53 FPS (109 vs 56). At 4K, the gap narrows to 29 FPS (60 vs 31), which indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases.

The min FPS data at Medium settings provides insight into frame stability. At 1080p, the min is 108 FPS, which is 84% of the average. At 1440p, the min is 71 FPS, which is 86% of the average. At 4K, the min is 39 FPS, which is 85% of the average. These ratios are consistent, suggesting that the game maintains stable frame pacing across resolutions when the GPU is the bottleneck. There are no sudden dips or stutters that would indicate a CPU or driver issue.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across presets: Low drops from 166 to 109 (34% reduction), Medium from 128 to 83 (35%), High from 109 to 71 (35%), and Ultra from 85 to 56 (34%). The scaling from 1440p to 4K is also consistent: Low drops from 109 to 60 (45%), Medium from 83 to 46 (45%), High from 71 to 39 (45%), and Ultra from 56 to 31 (45%). This uniformity confirms that the performance is purely pixel-bound, with no other variable affecting the outcome.

The 4K results are the most telling for the GPU's limits. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 31 FPS, which is below the playable threshold for most users. At 4K High, it is 39 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 46 FPS. Only 4K Low reaches 60 FPS. For a 2016 game, these numbers are surprisingly low at 4K, which suggests that the RTX 5070 Mobile's 8 GB VRAM or its 128-bit memory bus may be a constraint at this resolution, despite the 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The game's engine may also have inefficient rendering paths that do not benefit from modern GPU architecture.

In summary, the measured FPS data shows a GPU-bound scenario at all resolutions, with the RTX 5070 Mobile providing strong performance at 1080p and 1440p, but struggling at 4K with higher presets. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is not a limiting factor, as evidenced by the consistent scaling and stable frame pacing. The combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming, where it delivers high frame rates across most settings.