The Technomancer

# The Technomancer with Intel Core Ultra 7 265K + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The combination of Intel's 20-core Core Ultra 7 265K and NVIDIA's GTX 1650 produces a heavily GPU-limited experience in The Technomancer, with the measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings falling below 70 FPS at 1080p and dropping to as low as 13 FPS at 4K Ultra. This pairing ranks 3568th out of 3696 tested combos in this title, placing it in the bottom 3.5% of all configurations, which reflects the GTX 1650's position as the primary constraint while the CPU's substantial compute resources remain largely underutilized in this 2016 Action RPG.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario where each resolution step imposes a significant performance penalty. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 68 FPS, but moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 44 FPS — a reduction of 24 FPS or roughly 35% — and then to 4K Low, where the average falls to 24 FPS, another 20 FPS loss. This steep decline across resolution steps indicates that the GTX 1650's rendering throughput, not the CPU's processing power, dictates the performance ceiling.

The Medium preset shows a similar pattern: 52 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p Medium is 18 FPS, while the gap between 1440p and 4K Medium is 15 FPS, suggesting that the GPU's fillrate and memory bandwidth constraints become progressively more severe as pixel count increases. The 4K Medium result also includes a minimum FPS of 16 and maximum of 22, illustrating frame time variance that grows with resolution.

High settings follow the same trajectory: 45 FPS at 1080p, 29 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K. The proportional loss from 1080p to 1440p is again roughly 35%, consistent with the Low preset's scaling. At Ultra, the pattern continues with 35 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 13 FPS represents the worst measured performance for this combo, falling below the 16 FPS minimum observed at 4K Medium.

These scaling patterns strongly indicate that the limiting component is the graphics card. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, cannot sustain playable frame rates at higher resolutions. The CPU's role is minimal in this scaling behavior because even at 1080p Low, where the GPU load is lightest, the combo only reaches 68 FPS — a figure that would be substantially higher if the processor were the bottleneck.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650's specifications explain the measured results comprehensively. Built on the Turing architecture at 12 nm, this GPU operates with a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, delivering 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The 896 shading units and 32 ROPs, combined with a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s, define the card's raw rendering capacity. The 4 GB memory capacity, while adequate for 1080p in many titles, becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions where larger framebuffers and texture sets demand more storage and bandwidth than this card can provide.

The memory configuration is particularly relevant to The Technomancer's results. With 2001 MHz memory clock (8 Gbps effective) and a 128-bit bus, the GTX 1650 achieves 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. At 4K resolution, the pixel throughput requirements outstrip this bandwidth, contributing to the dramatic FPS drops observed. The card's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate its entry-level positioning, and the benchmark data confirms this: the GPU's percentile ranking sits at 40th among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472.

Comparing the GTX 1650 to its nearest rivals contextualizes its performance. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 (0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425 (0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. These narrow deltas place the GTX 1650 in a performance tier where 4K gaming is not a realistic expectation, and even 1440p requires reduced settings to approach playability.

The measured FPS data aligns with these specifications. At 1080p, the card can produce 68 FPS on Low and 52 FPS on Medium, but Ultra drops to 35 FPS — a 48% reduction from Low. This setting sensitivity is typical of a GPU with limited shading units and memory bandwidth. The 4K results, ranging from 13 to 24 FPS, are consistent with a card whose pixel rate and bandwidth are insufficient for that resolution class.

FAQ

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

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 68, followed by Medium at 52, High at 45, and Ultra at 35. The data shows that each preset step costs roughly 10-16 FPS at 1080p.

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at any resolution and settings combination?

A: Yes, but only at 1080p with the Low preset, which reaches 68 FPS. No other measured configuration exceeds 60 FPS — the next closest is 1080p Medium at 52 FPS, and all 1440p and 4K results fall below 45 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the Arc A310 scores 7550, making the Arc 1% faster. However, the GTX 1650 outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 0.3%, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 by 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 by 0.6%.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the combo averages 45 FPS, while at 4K High it drops to 16 FPS. This represents a 29 FPS reduction, or roughly 64% lower performance when moving to 4K.

Q: Which resolution offers the most balanced experience across all settings?

A: The 1440p results show averages of 44 FPS on Low, 34 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 23 FPS on Ultra. While not as smooth as 1080p Low, 1440p Low provides a usable frame rate with higher visual detail than 1080p Low.

Q: Does the Ultra preset ever outperform the Medium preset at any resolution?

A: No. Across all three resolutions, Medium consistently outperforms Ultra. At 1080p, Medium averages 52 FPS versus Ultra's 35 FPS; at 1440p, 34 FPS versus 23 FPS; and at 4K, 19 FPS versus 13 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest performance. The Low preset averages 68 FPS, which is the only measured configuration to exceed 60 FPS. Medium averages 52 FPS with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 60, indicating that frame rates occasionally dip into the 40s during demanding scenes. High averages 45 FPS, and Ultra averages 35 FPS. These results demonstrate that 1080p is the only resolution where the game approaches smooth playability, and even then only at the lowest settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low averages 44 FPS, Medium averages 34 FPS with a range of 29 to 39, High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The 1440p Medium results show a 10 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, suggesting inconsistent frame pacing that could impact perceived smoothness. At this resolution, no preset achieves the 45 FPS that High does at 1080p, highlighting the GPU's resolution sensitivity.

At 3840x2160, the results fall to marginal levels. Low averages 24 FPS, Medium averages 19 FPS with a minimum of 16 and maximum of 22, High averages 16 FPS, and Ultra averages 13 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 16 FPS is particularly notable because it equals the High preset's average, indicating that even modest scene complexity can push frame rates below 20 FPS. The overall trend across all settings at 4K confirms that this resolution is not viable for this GPU.

The setting-to-setting deltas are consistent across resolutions. From Low to Medium, the average FPS drops by 16 at 1080p, 10 at 1440p, and 5 at 4K. From Medium to High, the drops are 7, 5, and 3 respectively. From High to Ultra, the drops are 10, 6, and 3. These diminishing absolute deltas at higher resolutions reflect the GPU's saturation point — as pixel count increases, the card becomes so constrained that settings changes have less absolute impact, though the percentage losses remain significant.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K presents an interesting contrast to the GPU's limitations. With 20 cores and 20 threads running at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost of 5.50 GHz, this Arrow Lake-S processor offers substantial compute capacity. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache, 3 MB per-core L2 cache, and 192 KB per-core L1 cache provide ample data storage for game workloads. The CPU's benchmark scores reinforce its strength: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 35850, Geekbench multi-core hits 23085, and PassMark multi-thread scores 58594.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 94th among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70879, places it in the upper echelon of processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P at 71051 (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 at 71370 (0.7% higher), the Intel Core i7-14700KF at 70163 (1% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F at 69996 (1.3% lower). These close deltas indicate that the 265K is competitive with high-end server and desktop parts.

However, in The Technomancer, the CPU's capabilities are not the limiting factor. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (68 FPS) is well below what this CPU could theoretically support in a less GPU-constrained scenario. The fact that frame rates scale so dramatically with resolution — from 68 FPS at 1080p Low to 24 FPS at 4K Low — proves that the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were the constraint, resolution changes would have minimal impact on FPS.

The CPU's memory support for DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, along with PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, ensures that the rest of the system does not impede the GPU's performance. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU is present but not used for this game's rendering, as the discrete GTX 1650 handles all graphics work. The CPU's 125 W TDP and active production status indicate a modern, capable platform, but this benchmark pairing demonstrates that even top-tier processors cannot compensate for entry-level GPU limitations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal configuration for this combo is 1080p with the Low preset, which delivers 68 FPS. This is the only setting that provides a frame rate clearly above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. If visual quality is prioritized, 1080p Medium at 52 FPS offers a reasonable compromise, with the minimum of 44 FPS still maintaining playability in most scenes. The 1080p High preset at 45 FPS is acceptable for users who prefer higher detail but should note that frame rates will drop below 60 FPS consistently.

At 1440p, the Low preset at 44 FPS is the most viable option, though users should expect a less fluid experience than 1080p Low. The Medium preset at 34 FPS, with a minimum of 29 FPS, may cause noticeable stuttering during action sequences. 1440p High and Ultra at 29 and 23 FPS respectively are not recommended for gameplay, as these frame rates fall into the territory where responsiveness and visual smoothness degrade significantly.

The 4K resolution is not recommended for this combo under any settings. Even the Low preset at 24 FPS falls below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered the minimum for playable action games. The Ultra preset at 13 FPS is effectively a slideshow. Users with 4K displays should either run the game at 1080p with a scaling option or accept that The Technomancer will not perform adequately at native 4K with this GPU.

The data suggests that the most balanced experience — considering both frame rate and visual fidelity — is 1080p Medium. This preset provides 52 FPS average with a 44 FPS minimum, which maintains reasonable smoothness while offering higher texture and effect quality than Low. For users who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 68 FPS is the clear choice, as it provides the headroom to handle demanding scenes without dropping below 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

This configuration ranks 3568th out of 3696 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the 96.5th percentile of the worst performers — meaning only 128 combos perform worse. This ranking is primarily attributable to the GTX 1650, which sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 7472. The CPU, by contrast, ranks at the 94th percentile, demonstrating that the processor is not the performance limiter.

The rank disparity between the CPU and GPU components highlights the imbalance of this pairing. A top-tier CPU like the Core Ultra 7 265K, with its 20 cores and 5.50 GHz boost clock, is paired with an entry-level GPU that was already end-of-life as of its 2019 release. In The Technomancer, a title from 2016, the GPU's age and limited specifications become even more pronounced, as the game's requirements have not scaled to utilize the CPU's modern architecture fully.

Comparatively, the GPU's nearest rivals — the Intel Arc A310 at 1% higher average score, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, Intel UHD Graphics 750, and AMD Radeon R7 350 all within 0.6% lower — suggest that the GTX 1650's performance class is limited. None of these GPUs would be expected to deliver high frame rates at 1440p or 4K in a demanding Action RPG, and the measured data confirms this expectation.

The combo's overall ranking reflects not just the GPU's absolute performance but also its interaction with this specific game. The Technomancer's rendering demands, combined with the GTX 1650's 4 GB memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, create a scenario where even the CPU's substantial resources cannot boost the experience. Users considering this pairing for The Technomancer should expect to play at 1080p with reduced settings, and those with higher-resolution displays will find the performance inadequate for smooth gameplay.