The Technomancer

The Technomancer is a 2016 Action RPG that stresses systems in an unusual way, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the Intel Arc B370 integrated GPU produces a very specific bottleneck profile. The CPU is a desktop-class powerhouse with 24 cores and 24 threads, a 3.70 GHz base clock, and a 5.50 GHz boost clock. In synthetic tests, this processor scores 44,253 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,439 in single-core, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 puts it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are legacy parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and AMD Radeon HD 5770. The measured frame rates in The Technomancer reflect this extreme mismatch: the GPU is clearly the limiting factor at every resolution and settings level, while the CPU's capabilities are largely untapped in this workload.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus brings 24 cores and 24 threads to the table, a configuration that is far beyond what a 2016 Action RPG like The Technomancer was designed to exploit. The game's engine was built for an era of 4-core and 8-thread processors, so the 24-thread count here is largely idle headroom. The base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz are the more relevant specs for this title, as The Technomancer's gameplay logic, AI, and physics calculations tend to rely on a few high-frequency threads rather than massive parallel throughput. The synthetic benchmarks confirm this: the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253 shows the CPU's ability to crush heavily threaded workloads, but the single-core score of 2,439 is what matters more for a game that rarely scales beyond a handful of threads.

The data from the measured FPS rows reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 71 FPS average, which is the highest score in the entire measured set. At 1080p Ultra, that drops to 37 FPS. The gap between these settings is not caused by CPU limitations—the processor is capable of far more than 71 FPS in this game if the GPU could keep up. Instead, the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are the constraining factors. The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are server and workstation parts like the Intel Xeon 6520P (0% delta) and AMD EPYC 4564P (-1.5% delta), which further illustrates that this CPU is designed for productivity workloads, not for feeding a low-power integrated GPU in a 2016 game.

What the data shows is that the CPU role in this combo is to provide a stable, high-frequency foundation that never becomes the bottleneck. The 3.70 GHz base clock ensures that even at stock settings, the processor can maintain enough single-thread throughput to avoid stutter in The Technomancer's combat sequences. The 5.50 GHz boost clock gives headroom for when the game does spike in CPU demand, such as when multiple enemies are on screen with dynamic lighting effects. However, the benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the limiting component across all four settings at every resolution, meaning the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads are effectively wasted in this specific pairing. The 125 W TDP and 3 nm process node (TSMC foundry) are characteristics of a modern desktop part, but they have no direct bearing on the 17 FPS average seen at 4K High.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 1080p Low setting produce 71 FPS while 4K Ultra only manages 13 FPS?

A: The Arc B370's integrated graphics are the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the GPU is only rendering 1,920x1,080 pixels with minimal effects, allowing a 71 FPS average. At 4K Ultra, the pixel count quadruples to 3,840x2,160 and the graphical load increases dramatically, dropping the average to 13 FPS. The CPU's performance is identical in both cases, so the entire delta is attributable to the GPU's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus strong enough for this game?

A: Yes, overwhelmingly so. The CPU scores 44,253 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,439 in single-core, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6520P, has a 0% delta in average benchmark score. The CPU is never the bottleneck in any measured configuration; the GPU always is.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1,184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, putting it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with a score of 1,186, a -0.2% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190 (-0.5% delta), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1,168 (1.4% delta). These are all legacy parts from over a decade ago.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a playable experience?

A: The 1080p Low preset gives 71 FPS average, which is the only measured configuration above 60 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset drops to 55 FPS average, with a minimum of 47 FPS. For a smooth experience, 1080p Low is the only safe choice, though 1080p Medium is borderline acceptable if you can tolerate occasional dips below 50 FPS.

Q: Does increasing resolution affect the CPU or GPU more?

A: The GPU is affected far more. Moving from 1080p Low to 4K Low drops the average FPS from 71 to 26, a 63% reduction. The CPU's workload does not scale with resolution in the same way; pixel rendering is entirely the GPU's job. The CPU has the same 24 threads and 5.50 GHz boost clock regardless of resolution, so the FPS drop is purely a GPU limitation.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2,603 out of 2,825 tested combos for The Technomancer, placing it in the bottom 8% of all system pairings. This is consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile ranking and the CPU's 96th percentile ranking—the weak link drags the entire system down.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only settings preset that delivers a consistently playable frame rate is 1080p Low, which averages 71 FPS. This is the sole configuration in the entire measured set that breaks the 60 FPS threshold. The 1080p Medium preset averages 55 FPS with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, which is playable but will exhibit visible stutter during dense combat scenes or when the game's dynamic lighting changes rapidly. The 1080p High preset drops to 47 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS target and will feel noticeably less responsive.

At 1440p, the situation degrades further. The 1440p Low preset averages 47 FPS, the same as 1080p High, indicating that the GPU is already saturated at this resolution. The 1440p Medium preset averages 36 FPS with a 30 FPS minimum, which is playable on a VRR display but will feel sluggish on a fixed-refresh monitor. The 1440p High preset drops to 31 FPS, and 1440p Ultra bottoms out at 24 FPS—both are below the threshold for comfortable action gameplay.

At 4K, no preset is playable. The 4K Low preset averages 26 FPS, 4K Medium averages 20 FPS, 4K High averages 17 FPS, and 4K Ultra averages 13 FPS. These frame rates are cinematic at best and unplayable for an Action RPG where timing matters. The data suggests that if you are stuck with this combo, you should run 1080p Low and accept the visual compromises. If you want to run 1080p Medium, the 47 FPS minimum will be the deciding factor—it is below the 50 FPS threshold that most players consider the floor for smooth gameplay. The 1080p High and Ultra settings are not recommended because the 37 FPS average at Ultra is a 48% reduction from the Low preset's 71 FPS, with visual gains that are unlikely to justify the performance hit on an integrated GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2,603 out of 2,825 tested combos for The Technomancer. This places the system in the bottom 7.9% of all pairings, which is a poor result driven entirely by the GPU. The CPU alone sits in the 96th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 93,785. The GPU alone sits in the 5th percentile of all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 1,184. When these two are combined, the CPU's massive headroom does nothing to compensate for the GPU's deficit.

The rank of 2,603 out of 2,825 means that 222 other combos perform worse than this one in The Technomancer. That is a small group, and it consists almost exclusively of systems with even older or weaker integrated graphics. The data shows that the CPU is not contributing to the low rank—if the same GPU were paired with a weaker CPU, the rank would likely be similar, since the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution and settings level. Conversely, if the same CPU were paired with a discrete GPU, the rank would improve dramatically, as the CPU has demonstrated it can handle far more demanding workloads.

The practical takeaway is that this combo is severely unbalanced for gaming. The CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads, 36 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are all wasted on a GPU that cannot render The Technomancer above 71 FPS even at the lowest settings. The nearest rival CPUs—Intel Xeon 6520P, AMD EPYC 4564P, AMD EPYC 9175F, and AMD EPYC 4565P—are all server processors with similar or slightly higher average scores, reinforcing that this CPU is meant for compute tasks, not gaming. The rank of 2,603 should be interpreted as a warning: this combo will struggle with any modern game, and even a 2016 title like The Technomancer exposes the GPU's limitations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a consistent and severe drop as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 71 at 1080p to 47 at 1440p to 26 at 4K. That is a 34% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 55 FPS at 1080p, 36 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K—a 35% drop followed by a 44% drop. At High settings, the numbers are 47 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K, which is a 34% drop and then a 45% drop. At Ultra settings, the progression is 37 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K, representing a 35% drop and then a 46% drop.

These percentages are remarkably consistent across all four settings presets, which indicates that the scaling is driven by pixel count rather than by the complexity of the graphical effects. Going from 1080p to 1440p increases the pixel count by 78%, and going from 1440p to 4K increases it by 125%. The FPS drops are not proportional to the pixel count increases, which suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound—it is also hitting memory bandwidth or shading unit limits. The Arc B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with system-shared memory, which means the GPU is competing with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth of the CPU is shared with the GPU, and at 4K, the texture reads and frame buffer writes overwhelm this shared pool.

The data clearly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see the FPS stay relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload does not change with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops by roughly a third to a half at each resolution step, which is exactly what a GPU-bound system looks like. The 1080p Low result of 71 FPS is the only configuration where the GPU is not completely saturated, and even there, the CPU's 5.50 GHz boost clock is likely idling because the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough. The resolution scaling behavior confirms that upgrading the GPU to any discrete part would yield massive improvements, while upgrading the CPU would yield no measurable gain in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. The Low preset averages 71 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. The Medium preset averages 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 FPS and a maximum of 63 FPS, indicating a playable but not perfectly smooth experience. The High preset averages 47 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 37 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 34 FPS, which is a 48% reduction in performance. This spread is entirely attributable to the GPU's rendering load, as the CPU has ample headroom at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. The Low preset averages 47 FPS, which is exactly the same as the 1080p High preset—this shows that the GPU is already hitting a performance ceiling. The Medium preset averages 36 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 41 FPS. The High preset averages 31 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 24 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 23 FPS, which is a 49% reduction. The 30 FPS minimum at Medium is the lowest measured minimum in the dataset, indicating that even the medium settings can cause frame drops below the playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the performance is poor across the board. The Low preset averages 26 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold for playability. The Medium preset averages 20 FPS, with a minimum of 17 FPS and a maximum of 23 FPS. The High preset averages 17 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 13 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 13 FPS, which is a 50% reduction. None of these frame rates are suitable for an Action RPG, as the game's combat requires responsive input that these frame rates cannot provide. The 17 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is particularly problematic, as it indicates that the GPU can drop to near-slideshow levels during intense scenes. The data across all resolutions and settings paints a consistent picture: the Arc B370 is the bottleneck, and the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is never the limiting factor.