The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, presents an intriguing case study for modern hardware. The combination of the 24-core Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER produces a wide range of frame rates that shift dramatically based on resolution and quality settings. This dataset provides a clear picture of how a high-end CPU and GPU from a later generation handle an older title, revealing where the bottlenecks lie and what the optimal experience is.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a formidable processor, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and manufactured on a 3 nm process. It integrates 24 cores and 24 threads, a configuration that prioritizes parallel throughput. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz can boost up to 5.50 GHz, and the chip is equipped with a substantial 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor’s 125 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory with a dual-channel 115.2 GB/s bus underscore its position as a high-performance desktop part. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a 96th percentile ranking against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 93785. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and single-core score of 2439 indicate a balanced capability for both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

In the context of The Technomancer, the CPU's role is crucial but nuanced. The game was released in 2016, a time when six to eight cores were considered high-end. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24. At 1080p, the CPU has the headroom to feed the GPU at very high frame rates. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 296. This figure suggests the game is not heavily limited by the CPU, as it can push well beyond typical display refresh rates. However, the architecture of an older title like this may not utilize all 24 threads efficiently. The high single-core score of 2439 in Cinebench R23 is likely more relevant for the game's primary game logic and rendering thread. The CPU's performance is so far ahead of the game's requirements that it essentially becomes a non-factor at lower resolutions, allowing the GPU to be the primary limiter. The CPU's nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores, such as the Intel Xeon 6520P with a deltaPct of 0, show that its raw compute power is in a class of its own for this workload, but the game's engine is unlikely to tap into that full potential.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture and is an end-of-life product from the GeForce 40-series. It features a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz. The GPU is equipped with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s. This memory capacity is ample for any modern title, and it is more than sufficient for The Technomancer's 2016-era textures and assets. The GPU's compute power is immense, with a FP32 performance of 52.22 TFLOPS and a texture rate of 816.0 GTexel/s. In the overall GPU benchmark pool, it sits in the 86th percentile with an average benchmark score of 54209. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, is only 0.1% behind in average score, indicating that the SUPER variant offers a marginal, but present, performance uplift.

The RTX 4080 SUPER's performance in this game scales predictably with resolution. At 4K, the GPU becomes the definitive bottleneck. The data shows a noticeable drop in frame rates compared to 1440p, which is the classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. The 16 GB of VRAM is not a limiting factor at any resolution, as even the highest settings on a 2016 game will not exceed that capacity. The GPU's raw power is what drives the performance. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 54, a clear indication that the rendering load is maxing out the GPU's capabilities. The card’s passmark G3D score of 34245 and its DirectX 12 score of 134 in Passmark suggest strong modern API performance, but The Technomancer likely relies on older DirectX 11 paths, where the card's performance is still exceptional, as evidenced by its DirectX 11 score of 301. The GPU's role is to provide the raw fill rate and shader power; in this game, it is the dominant factor in determining performance at higher resolutions.

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

Analyzing the measured FPS data, the "best" experience is a trade-off between visual fidelity and smoothness, but the data points to a clear winner for a high-refresh-rate display. At 1080p, the High preset delivers an average of 194 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 227 FPS. The Ultra preset still produces a very playable 152 FPS. However, the jump from Medium to High is not as significant as the jump from High to Ultra. For a 1440p monitor, the High preset at 127 FPS is an excellent target, offering a significant visual upgrade over Medium (149 FPS) while maintaining a frame rate that is well above the 100 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

The data strongly suggests that the High preset is the sweet spot. At 4K, the High preset averages 70 FPS, which is a solid console-like experience. The Ultra preset at 4K drops to 54 FPS, which is still playable but starts to feel less fluid. The Medium preset at 4K offers 82 FPS, but the visual compromise is likely not worth the frame rate increase. The High preset provides a balance, giving a substantial visual improvement over Medium while keeping the frame rate high enough for an enjoyable experience. At 1080p, the Ultra preset's 152 FPS is still high enough for most displays, but the High preset's 194 FPS is closer to the 1080p Low preset's 296 FPS, indicating that the High settings are not overly demanding on the GPU. The data implies that for the vast majority of users, selecting the High preset is the optimal choice, as it provides a significant visual boost over Medium without the steep performance cost of Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER ranks 177th out of 2825 tested combos for this game. This puts it in the top 6.3% of all tested system configurations. While this is an impressive ranking, it is not at the very top, which is telling. The data implies that there are 176 other combinations that perform better in The Technomancer. Given that the CPU and GPU are both high-end components, this ranking suggests that the game's engine has specific quirks or limitations that prevent this particular pairing from being the absolute best.

This rank of 177 out of 2825 indicates that the system is far more powerful than the vast majority of setups, but it is not the pinnacle of performance for this specific title. The gap between this combo and the top-ranked ones could be due to the CPU's architecture. While the 24 cores are excellent for modern productivity tasks, the game may favor a processor with fewer, higher-clocked cores that are more efficient at handling the game's legacy threading model. The GPU, while incredibly powerful, is not the limiting factor in its own right; the RTX 4080 SUPER is a top-tier card. The ranking suggests that the CPU is holding the system back from reaching the absolute peak in this specific game, as a different CPU with a similar GPU might allow the combo to rank higher. The data shows that while this is a high-performing combo, it is not the definitive best for The Technomancer, making it a curious example of how game-specific performance can defy general hardware hierarchy.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions is a textbook demonstration of a GPU-bound system. Starting at 1080p High, the average FPS is 194. Moving to 1440p High, the FPS drops to 127. Finally, at 4K High, it drops to 70. This is a clear and consistent decline. From 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate drops by 67 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K, it drops by another 57 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is approximately 64%. This massive reduction in frame rate as resolution increases points directly to the GPU being the limiting component.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller difference between 1080p and 1440p, and a much smaller drop at 4K, because the CPU's workload is largely independent of resolution. The fact that the frame rate scales inversely with the number of pixels rendered confirms that the RTX 4080 SUPER is being pushed to its absolute limit at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to achieve 194 FPS, but it is not the constraint. At 4K, the GPU is working at full capacity, rendering each frame as fast as it can. The data indicates that to achieve a higher frame rate at 4K, one would need a more powerful GPU, but at 1080p, the system is likely still GPU-limited, just at a much higher performance ceiling. The Ultra preset shows an even steeper curve: 152 FPS at 1080p, 99 FPS at 1440p, and 54 FPS at 4K. This scaling pattern is a definitive sign that the graphics card is the primary determinant of performance, and the CPU's role becomes less critical as resolution increases.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 127.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows a significant frame rate drop from 1440p to 4K, indicating the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded in the entire dataset?

A: The highest average FPS is 296, achieved at 1080p with Low settings.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems for this game?

A: It ranks 177th out of 2825 tested combos.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 1440p?

A: The minimum FPS recorded for that configuration is 126.

Q: Does the system achieve a playable frame rate at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: Yes, it averages 54 FPS, which is playable, though not optimal for high-refresh-rate displays.

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

The following is the complete set of measured frame rate data.

3840x2160 (4K)

• High: Average FPS 70
• Low: Average FPS 106
• Medium: Average FPS 82, with a minimum of 69 and a maximum of 94
• Ultra: Average FPS 54

2560x1440 (1440p)

• High: Average FPS 127
• Low: Average FPS 194
• Medium: Average FPS 149, with a minimum of 126 and a maximum of 171
• Ultra: Average FPS 99

1920x1080 (1080p)

• High: Average FPS 194
• Low: Average FPS 296
• Medium: Average FPS 227, with a minimum of 193 and a maximum of 262
• Ultra: Average FPS 152

This data shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern. At every resolution, the Low preset offers the highest frame rate, followed by High, then Medium, and finally Ultra. The presence of minimum and maximum FPS data for the Medium preset at all resolutions indicates a more detailed capture for that setting. The 1080p Low result of 296 FPS stands out as an exceptional outlier, suggesting that the game's engine can reach very high frame rates when the GPU is not heavily loaded, and the CPU is sufficiently powerful to handle the game logic at that speed. The progression from these numbers confirms the GPU-bound nature of the system at higher resolutions, while also showing the CPU has enough headroom to support extremely high frame rates at 1080p.