The Technomancer

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node. Its base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz are paired with a 30 MB shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 50009 and a single-core score of 7060, with a PassMark multithread score of 58838 and a single-thread score of 4904. The processor sits at the 97th percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79102.

The data suggests that for a 2016 Action RPG like The Technomancer, the CPU's raw compute headroom is substantial. The PassMark physics score of 3826 and integer math score of 143387 indicate strong general-purpose throughput. However, the measured frame rates in this game reveal that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution. Even at 1080p Low, where CPU load is typically highest relative to GPU, the system achieves 68.5 FPS — a figure that is far below what this processor's compute capabilities would suggest as a ceiling. The gap between CPU potential and actual game performance points to the GPU as the primary constraint.

The nearest rivals in CPU benchmark scores — the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF at -0.2% delta, the Intel Core i9-14900KF at -0.2%, and the Intel Core i9-14900K at -0.9% — all sit within a narrow band of performance. This means the 265K is statistically indistinguishable from its closest competitors in general compute. For The Technomancer, this processor's 20 threads are likely underutilized, as the game's engine from 2016 was not designed to scale across that many cores. The L3 cache of 30 MB and the 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample memory hierarchy for the game's workloads, but the bottleneck remains firmly on the graphics side.

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

Examining the measured FPS rows across all settings presets, the data reveals a clear pattern of diminishing returns as quality increases. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 68.5 FPS, Medium drops to 51.5 FPS, High falls to 45 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 35.4 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 17 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs nearly 10 FPS. For a smooth experience at 1080p, the Medium preset at 51.5 FPS represents the best balance — it maintains playable frame rates while offering a reasonable visual upgrade over Low.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low preset achieves 47 FPS, which is the only setting that clears the 30 FPS threshold comfortably. Medium drops to 33.3 FPS, High falls to 30.1 FPS, and Ultra limps to 20.3 FPS. The data indicates that at 1440p, users should stick to Low or Medium presets, with Medium at 33.3 FPS being marginally playable but borderline. High at 30.1 FPS is exactly at the edge of playability, and Ultra is not recommended given the sub-25 FPS result.

At 4K, all presets fall below 25 FPS. Low at 24.2 FPS is the only preset that approaches a playable range, while High at 18 FPS, Medium at 16.7 FPS, and Ultra at 13.3 FPS are all effectively slideshows. The recommendation is clear: for this combo, 4K is not viable for gameplay, and even 1440p requires dropping to Low or Medium. The most sensible experience is 1080p Medium or High, depending on whether visual fidelity or frame rate smoothness takes priority. The measured data shows that Medium at 1080p offers 51.5 FPS, which is 46% higher than High at 45 FPS, making Medium the optimal choice for responsive gameplay.

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

The resolution scaling data tells a compelling story about where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces the average FPS from 68.5 to 47, a drop of 31.4%. Moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it further to 24.2 FPS, another 48.5% reduction. At High settings, the progression is 45 FPS at 1080p, 30.1 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K — drops of 33.1% and 40.2% respectively.

These scaling patterns are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not change significantly with resolution. Instead, the steep drops as resolution increases — particularly the 4K results falling to roughly a third of the 1080p numbers — indicate that the AMD Radeon RX 570's rendering throughput is the constraint. The GPU's pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for the pixel fill demands of higher resolutions in this game.

The data also reveals an interesting anomaly at 4K Medium (16.7 FPS) versus 4K High (18 FPS). The Medium preset actually produces lower FPS than High, which is counterintuitive. This could indicate that the Medium preset uses different rendering paths or that the measurement variance at such low frame rates is significant. Regardless, the overall trend is unambiguous: this combo is severely GPU-limited, and the CPU's 5.50 GHz boost clock and 20 cores are nowhere near being exercised to their potential in this title.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K with the AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 1608 out of 1656 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places it in the bottom 3% of all combinations tested, which is a striking result given the CPU's high-end positioning. The CPU alone sits at the 97th percentile versus all CPUs, but the GPU's 74th percentile standing drags the overall combo ranking down dramatically.

The discrepancy between the CPU's percentile and the combo's low rank highlights a fundamental mismatch. The RX 570, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, was released in 2017 and is now end-of-life. Its 2048 shading units and 32 ROPs are simply not adequate for a modern (or even a 2016-era) Action RPG at higher settings. The data shows that this combo ranks near the bottom because the GPU is the weakest link, and no amount of CPU compute can compensate for the GPU's fill rate limitations.

For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at +0.2% delta, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT at +0.2%, and the NVIDIA Tesla M60 at +0.6%. These are all modern or high-end parts, yet the RX 570's average benchmark score of 30158 places it in the same performance band. This suggests that the RX 570's synthetic benchmark scores overstate its real-world gaming capability, as the combo rank in this game is far worse than the GPU's 74th percentile would imply.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is built on the Polaris 20 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process. It features a base clock of 1168 MHz and a boost clock of 1244 MHz, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s across a 256-bit bus is respectable for its era, but the 4 GB VRAM capacity is likely a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings in The Technomancer.

The GPU's shading units (2048), TMUs (128), and ROPs (32) determine its pixel and texture throughput. The pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s translate directly to the measured FPS drops at higher resolutions. At 4K, the GPU must push four times the pixels of 1080p, and the data shows the FPS dropping to roughly one-third or less of the 1080p values across all settings. This is consistent with a GPU that is completely saturated at 4K.

The FP32 performance of 5.095 TFLOPS is modest by modern standards, and the GPU's DirectX 12 support (12_0) is adequate for this 2016 title. The 150 W TDP and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface indicate this is a mid-range part from its generation, and the measured results confirm that it struggles with The Technomancer's demands. The 4 GB VRAM is particularly problematic at 4K Ultra, where the 13.3 FPS result suggests the GPU is also hitting memory capacity limits, causing additional stuttering or texture thrashing.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured performance shows a clear hierarchy: Low preset averages 68.5 FPS, Medium averages 51.5 FPS, High averages 45 FPS, and Ultra averages 35.4 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 33.1 FPS, representing a 48.3% reduction in frame rate when maxing out settings. All 1080p presets are technically playable, though Ultra dips below 40 FPS which may feel sluggish for fast-paced action.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress significantly: Low averages 47 FPS, Medium averages 33.3 FPS, High averages 30.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 20.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 26.7 FPS, but the absolute values are much lower. Only Low and Medium clear the 30 FPS threshold, and High is borderline at 30.1 FPS. Ultra at 20.3 FPS is not a viable gameplay experience.

At 3840x2160, all presets fall into the unplayable range: Low averages 24.2 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, Medium averages 16.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 13.3 FPS. The ordering is non-monotonic — High beats Medium by 1.3 FPS — which suggests measurement noise or inconsistent rendering paths at these extreme settings. The key takeaway is that 4K is not feasible with this combo, regardless of settings.

The overall pattern across all 12 measured rows shows that the GPU is the dominant constraint. The CPU's 20 cores and 5.50 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom, but the RX 570's 4 GB VRAM and 39.81 GPixel/s pixel rate cap the system's performance. The data implies that users should target 1080p Medium or High for the best balance of visual quality and playability, with 1440p Low as a secondary option if higher resolution is preferred over settings quality.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 51.5 FPS, which is 46% higher than High at 45 FPS and within 17 FPS of Low at 68.5 FPS. Medium offers the best trade-off between visual quality and smoothness according to the measured data.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in The Technomancer?

A: No. All 4K presets fall below 25 FPS, with Low at 24.2 FPS being the highest and Ultra at 13.3 FPS being the lowest. The 4K results are uniformly unplayable, indicating the GPU's pixel throughput and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for this resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1608 out of 1656 total tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3% of all combinations. This is despite the CPU ranking at the 97th percentile, because the GPU's performance drags the overall result down.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The FPS drops by roughly 50-60% when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings, which is characteristic of GPU-bound rendering. The CPU's 20 cores and high boost clock are not being fully utilized, as evidenced by the low absolute frame rates even at 1080p Low.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of these components?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has a launch MSRP of $394, and the AMD Radeon RX 570 has a launch MSRP of 169 USD. These are the only pricing figures available in the data.

Q: Why does 4K Medium (16.7 FPS) perform worse than 4K High (18 FPS)?

A: The non-monotonic ordering at 4K — where High beats Medium by 1.3 FPS — is an anomaly in the measured data. It could indicate different rendering paths or measurement variance at such low frame rates, but the practical takeaway is that both presets are unplayable at 4K.