The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, places heavy demands on both processor and graphics hardware depending on resolution. This pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, a 24-core/24-thread Arrow Lake Refresh chip, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, a 16 GB Ada Lovelace card, delivers measured frame rates that range from 298 FPS at 1080p Low down to 55 FPS at 4K Ultra. The following analysis draws on benchmark data for this specific CPU+GPU combination, examining how resolution, preset levels, and the two components' internal resources shape the game's performance envelope.

Resolution Scaling

Moving from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160 produces a consistent, predictable reduction in average FPS across all four preset levels. At Low settings, the measured average drops from 298 FPS at 1080p to 195 FPS at 1440p — a 34.6% decrease — and then again from 195 to 107 FPS at 4K, a 45.1% relative drop from 1440p. The full 1080p-to-4K scaling at Low yields a 64.1% reduction in frame rate. At High preset the trajectory is nearly identical: 195 → 128 → 70, with same 34.4% and 45.3% relative falls, totaling 64.1% lost when moving from Full HD to Ultra HD. The Medium preset shows 229 FPS at 1080p, 149 at 1440p, and 82 at 4K — again a 34.9% first step and 45.0% second step. Ultra's numbers are 152, 100 and 55, with a 34.2% and 45.0% drop respectively. This near-perfect consistency across settings indicates that the limiting component at higher resolutions is the GPU's pixel fill and memory throughput, not the CPU — as resolution scales, the same percentage of rendering cost is added at each predictive step. At the low-end resolution (1080p Low) the RTX 4080 is only exhibiting a fraction of its headroom, leaving CPU headroom visible; the 24-core Ultra 7 is capable of feeding the GPU with 298 FPS at 1920×1080 Low, which is well above typical 144 Hz display refresh rates.

The data present no min/max frame data except for the Medium preset at each resolution. That yields one extra detail: at 1080p Medium the range is 194–263 FPS (average 229), at 1440p Medium it's 127–172 (average 149), and at 4K Medium it's 70–94 (average 82). This window of 69, 45 and 24 FPS respectively shrinks as resolution increases, indicating that the pacing of the frame time becomes more stable when the GPU is pushed closer to its ceiling. The 4K numbers highlight the real bottleneck: with the RTX 4080's ~30% at Ultra, the 55 FPS at 4K Ultra and date to the point where the game is still playable on high-refresh monitors at lower settings, but not at the full 4K envelope across all presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 2560×1440 Ultra?

The measured result is 100 FPS for this combination, with no min/max data recorded. At that preset, 1440p Ultra sits comfortably above 60 FPS, and a shade below 100 FPS delivers smooth animation without requiring -cap.

Q: Does this combo run The Technomancer at 60 FPS on 4K?

Yes. The average FPS at 3840×2160 is 55 at Ultra, 70 at High, 82 at Medium, and 107 at Low. The Ultra drops under the 60 FPS target, so to stay in the 60-70 range you'd use "High" light which yields 70 (solution). Only at 4K Low does the medium show a plus margin (107 FPS).

Q: Which preset provides the most stable frame times at 1080p?

The Medium preset is the only 1080p row with a min/max delta. Min 194, max 263, spread 69 FPS. While the unemployment, Low is entirely extrapolated (107).

Q: How does the Ultra 7 265K Plus score in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test relative to its single-core?

Multi-core R23 scores 44253, single-core 2439 in this metric.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck at 1080p Elite?

At 1080p Low, the measured 298 FPS indicates the CPU cores (24/24) can feed the pipeline; the absence of a higher Result could be the display limit or GPU overburden. With the general 70.5% single-thread rating (5.7), there is no CPU-150 approach observed in data.

Q: Does the RTX 4080 hold up against its direct nominal successor based on list data?

The RTX 4080 sits within 0.1% of the RTX 4080 SUPER (delta +0.1% for SUPER ago rator A-about – 1.1% for W5700X lists, 2.7% for faster chips).

Baseline Graphic Role

The RTX 4080 in this combo is the main driver of the frame scaling seen above. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, with a measured effective memory clock of 1400 MHz and memory throughput rated 22.4 Gbps effective. The interface runs at 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is especially relevant at 4K where both the pixel fillrate (112 ROPs) and texture rate (761.5 GTexel/s) become decisive. The chip is built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 45.9 billion transistors across a 379 mm² die, and its 304 TMUs and 112 ROPs variety rate at the game's environment of chronic geometry.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 4080 scores 6567 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, 263779 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 214739 in OpenCL; its PassMark G3D is 34457. These place the GPU at the 86th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest nominal rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, averages a delta of +0.1% — a measurement that aligns with the game's productive execution being ~0–25 also, but the Gloria GPU is the only exact name. The GeForce RTX 4080's successor is the GeForce 50 series, and the predecessor GeForce 30. It uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and a 320 W TDP, with the motherboard interface 400-series.

The operating characteristics of this GPU at 1080p suggest it is not being strained: data shows a frame ceiling that would only display the maximum. Measured results at 4K Ultra (55 FPS) clarify that the gaming environment at higher resolutions consumes most of the RTX 4080's remaining capacity value — the data row at 2560×1440 (mean 179; 195 High) shows the upper half.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920×1080

• Low: 298 FPS (only avg)
• Medium: 229 FPS (ranging 194–263)
• High: 195 FPS
• Ultra: 152 FPS

The scaling is basically a straight descending ladder without the GPU being compressed any one step: medium overshoots low by 31%*, and ultra just 5% slower.

2560×1440

• Low: 195 FPS
• Medium: 149 FPS (range 127–172)
• High: 128 FPS
• Ultra: 100 FPS

The step from High to Ultra is only 16%, while Low to Medium is 24%, suggesting the Ultra preset involves a bigger portion of high-res effects that cost ~30% relative vs High.

3840×2160

• Low: 107 FPS
• Medium: 82 FPS (range 70–94)
• High: 70 FPS
• Ultra: 55 FPS

The 4K space never reaches even a third of the 1080p Velocity: the Ultra row is just above a 19% chunk of it. The 55 FPS at 4K Ultra crosses below that 60 threshold, but 4K Medium (70–94 FPS envelope) is a comfortable pace for gameplay.

The pattern per setting is essentially linear in resolution axis — for each preset, the relative share of FPS saved at 4K versus 1080p ∈ (64.8%, 64.1%) — but the absolute numbers scale down the GPU bound. Minus for Ultra: it's the least stable preset in absolute drops (55 vs 152), but its reduces for its 45% decrement.

Settings Recommendations

Which unit is "best" depends on the display target and refresh. The data set provides four measured rows per resolution; from them, Medium is the sweet spot.

• At 1920×1080, Medium averages 229 FPS with min 194/max 263. That handily refreshes a 240 Hz panel without dipping below its floor, and it leaves ~74 on the table above High (195 FPS). Ultra on 152 is still above 144 Hz, but with only a 38% uplift over High, pushing to Ultra is not needed if you runno a sub‑165 display.

• At 2560×1440, Medium (149 FPS, 127–172) hits the 120–165 Hz bracket, while High (128) already exceeds 120; Ultra (100) reaches 100 Hz which is decent on 144 Hz Medium is the worst (beats low), but loses stability — the only skew with min-max that frame is 65 FPS wide. The optimum is often "Medium if you want the full cursor range".

• At 3840×2160, Medium averages 82 FPS (with min 70/max 94), slightly above a 4K120 consumption. High (70) is below 72 but still in the bandwidth range of 60–75, so High is acceptable for fixed 60 Hz. Ultra (55) fails a locked 60 refresh; Low (107) is the standout if you chase 4K120 – it gives more than a 35% headroom, but the setting is their lowest graphical discipline.

Overall, the recommended preset across all three resolutions is Medium: at 1080p and 1440p it keeps stable big angles and lives above the next fences; at 4K it stays 60 FPS. High is better at exactly 1080p (where the 25% gap to low is bigger).

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Plus uses 24 cores and 24 threads, base clock 3.70 GHz, boost 5.50 GHz, a 3 MB L2 per core and a shared 36 MB L3. Its 3 nm TSMC process and 125 W TDP put it in a desktop segment with an unlocked multiplier. Geometrically, the CPU derives a 96th percentile performance across all CPUs. Its strong multi-thread workload is evident in Cinebench: 6656 (R15 multi), 24461 (R20 multi), 44253 (R23 multi), and single-core numbers 354 (R15), 3453 (R20), 2439 (R23). PassMark multi-row is 68574, single 5068.

In the nearest-rival list, the CPU sits exactly level with a Intel Xeon 6520P (deltaPct 0) and -1.5% behind an AMD EPYC 4564P; EPYC 9175F and 9165P follow at -1.9% and -2.1%. This CPU's is higher than that of a typical gaming chip, but for The Technomper the output at 1080p Low (298 FPS) shows that CPU cores aren't the constrainer at mid-range settings. At 4K Ultra (55 FPS), the frame rate is governed by GPU entirely the CPU has plenty of idle time.

The problem is that the game itself is much older (launched 2016), and its threading is limited— possibly scaling to 4 to 6 cores. Yet the data does not show a CPU bottleneck, because at 1080p Low, the 298 FPS is already near the 300 cap for multi-monitor; if the CPU were weak, we'd see sub-200 there. The high single-thread (score 2439 R23 single-core) makes up for any legacy limitation on scheduler by allowing low-latency front-page entries.

The launch MSRP of this CPU is $299, with memory tuned and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The socket is Intel 1851, with 20 PCIe Gen 5 laves. The measured data clearly does not display e.g., the 1080p Low does not exceed 298 FPS, possibly due display or a false negative, but the frame rate at high res suggests there is CPU headroom for 4K in the upper quadrant when GPU does not continue.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank in this game is 213 out of 3696 tested combinations — an top-0-0.687 percentile placement. That means it outperforms 3483 other combos, placing it among the best-connected performance of the database for The Technomancer. Yet its aggregate scores show the GPU itself is at 86th among all GPUs and the CPU at 96th percentile, so the overall position reflects more CPU than GPU. The data shows the frame rate at 4K Ultra (55) is within 5 of the target (4K) by a narrow margin, and the reason the combo does not rank at 1 is due to it being an upper-primary, not four-hundred.

Despite the very high percentile, the practical results at 4K Ultra (55 FPS) are not leading beyond the 213th spot; the chart rows are likely held by to be expected. When compared through the GPU's nearest rival, RTX 4080 SUPER (deltaPct +0.1), the combo's real step is about the same, but the limited availability of this specific entry in the tested list sets it at rank 213. The Ultra stairs show this is a solid high-end combo for The Technomancer; its 1080p Ultra (152) is 2524 MHz boost, at 4K High (70) you can play well, and it only needs the "Medium" to bring the stable, 184 seconds.