The Technomancer

Resolution Scaling

The Technomancer is not a particularly demanding title by modern standards, but the measured FPS data for this Intel Core Ultra 9 185H + RTX 4080 combination reveals a clear performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the combo delivers 140 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same High preset drops that to 92 FPS, a 34% reduction. At 3840x2160 High, the average falls to 50 FPS, which is another 46% drop from the 1440p figure. Across the full span from 1080p to 4K at High settings, the average frame rate declines from 140 to 50 FPS, a 64% loss.

The pattern holds across other settings tiers. At Low settings, 1080p produces 214 FPS, 1440p produces 140 FPS, and 4K produces 77 FPS. That is a 64% drop from 1080p to 4K, nearly identical to the High preset’s scaling. Medium settings show 164 FPS at 1080p, 107 FPS at 1440p, and 59 FPS at 4K — again a 64% reduction across the resolution range. Ultra settings are the steepest: 109 FPS at 1080p, 72 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K, a 64% decline as well. The consistency of this ~64% loss across all four quality presets strongly indicates that the GPU is the primary scaling bottleneck at higher resolutions, not the CPU or any system memory constraint.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution also tells a story. At 1080p, Low hits 214 FPS while Ultra drops to 109 FPS — a 49% reduction from raising settings. At 1440p, Low’s 140 FPS falls to Ultra’s 72 FPS, a 49% drop. At 4K, Low’s 77 FPS falls to Ultra’s 39 FPS, a 49% reduction. The uniformity of this settings-based penalty suggests the game’s quality presets scale rendering load in a predictable manner, with Ultra roughly doubling the per-frame cost compared to Low. The RTX 4080’s 16 GB GDDR6X memory and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient to keep frame pacing stable even at 4K Ultra, where the 39 FPS average is low but consistent with the game’s age and engine limitations rather than a memory capacity shortfall.

What the resolution scaling data says about the limiting component is clear: at 1080p, the CPU still has headroom, as evidenced by the 214 FPS Low result. That number is high enough that the Core Ultra 9 185H’s 16 cores and 22 threads are not holding back the GPU. At 4K, the GPU is decisively the constraint — 50 FPS at High and 39 FPS at Ultra are GPU-bound figures for a 2022-era flagship mobile GPU. The 45 W TDP CPU with a 5.10 GHz boost clock is not the limiting factor in this title; even at 1080p Low, the frame rate is capped by the game engine or the GPU’s rendering path, not by CPU throughput.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H + RTX 4080 pairing ranks 883rd out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. That places it in the 31st percentile of all combinations, meaning roughly 69% of tested CPU-GPU pairings deliver higher average frame rates in this specific game. This is a surprisingly modest ranking for a high-end mobile CPU and a desktop-class RTX 4080. The explanation lies in the game’s release date of 2016-06-27, which predates the RTX 40-series by over six years. The Technomancer’s engine was built for the GPU architectures and CPU generations of that era, and it does not scale efficiently with modern hardware’s features or raw throughput.

To contextualize the rank, consider the CPU’s nearest rivals. The Core Ultra 9 185H has an average benchmark score of 35670 across all tested workloads. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 scores 35719, a delta of -0.1%, making them statistically identical. The Intel Core 7 250H scores 35728 (-0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 scores 35802 (-0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X scores 35909 (-0.7%). All four rivals are within 0.7% of the Core Ultra 9 185H’s average CPU score, so none of them would likely produce meaningfully different FPS in The Technomancer when paired with the same RTX 4080. The combo’s rank is therefore a function of the GPU and game interaction, not CPU choice.

The GPU’s nearest rivals reinforce this. The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54247. The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54209 (+0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828 (-1.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698 (-2.6%), and the AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757 (-2.7%). The RTX 4080 sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, yet that does not translate to a top-tier ranking in The Technomancer. The game’s 2016 engine likely does not utilize the Ada Lovelace architecture’s RT cores (76) or tensor cores (304) in any meaningful way, and the 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is far beyond what a six-year-old game can feed. The 883rd ranking is thus a reflection of software limitations, not hardware inadequacy.

The percentile field for the GPU (86th) versus the combo rank (31st percentile) shows a massive gap. The CPU is in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Yet when combined in this game, the pair lands in the lower third of all combos. This is unusual for a contemporary title, where high-end components typically rank high. The Technomancer’s engine appears to have a low ceiling on frame rate, likely due to single-threaded or lightly threaded rendering paths that do not scale past a certain point. The 214 FPS at 1080p Low is probably near the engine’s practical maximum, regardless of hardware. That cap drags the combo’s rank down because many lower-end GPUs paired with strong CPUs can also hit that ceiling, and combos with weaker GPUs but better single-thread performance may edge ahead.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 in this combo is a desktop-class part in mobile clothing, but The Technomancer does not stress it the way a modern AAA title would. The GPU’s 16 GB GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus provides 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than enough for a 2016 game’s texture streaming and geometry needs. The 4K Ultra preset’s 39 FPS average is not a memory bandwidth issue — it is a raw shading and rasterization load that the game’s engine inefficiently converts into frames.

The clocks tell a similar story. The base clock is 2205 MHz with a boost of 2505 MHz. Memory runs at 1400 MHz with 22.4 Gbps effective. These are high figures, but The Technomancer’s rendering paths likely saturate well before the boost clock can be fully utilized. The 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs give the card a pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s. At 4K Ultra, the 39 FPS average suggests the game is heavily shader-bound, with the GPU’s massive FP32 throughput not translating to proportional frame rates due to the engine’s inability to parallelize workloads across all available execution units.

The 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die (TSMC 5 nm process) make this one of the most powerful GPUs available, yet the measured FPS in this game barely exceeds what a mid-range 2020 GPU might achieve. The comparison to the RTX 4080 SUPER is instructive: that card scores 54209 on average, a 0.1% delta from the RTX 4080. In The Technomancer, the two would be interchangeable. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, with 2.6% higher average score, might actually perform slightly better in this game if its architecture aligns better with the 2016 engine’s command patterns. The data does not support that claim directly, but the ranking delta suggests GPU architecture age compatibility matters more than raw compute in this title.

The GPU’s 86th percentile ranking across all GPUs is respectable, but the game’s low frame ceiling means the RTX 4080 is often idle-waiting on draw calls. The 4K Medium results include a min FPS of 50 and max of 68, with an average of 59. That narrow range indicates the GPU is delivering consistent frames without thermal or power throttling, but also that the workload is not pushing the card to its limits. The 320 W TDP and triple-slot cooler are overkill for a game where the GPU rarely exceeds 77 FPS even at 4K Low.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in The Technomancer?

A: The highest recorded average is 214 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 164 FPS at 1080p Medium, then 140 FPS at both 1080p High and 1440p Low.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested CPU-GPU combinations?

A: It ranks 883rd out of 2825 combos, placing it in the lower third of tested pairs for this game. The CPU is in the 85th percentile and the GPU in the 86th percentile individually, but the game’s engine limits combined performance.

Q: Is the RTX 4080’s 16 GB VRAM sufficient for 4K Ultra in this game?

A: Yes. The 4K Ultra preset runs at 39 FPS average, and the 16 GB GDDR6X memory with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth is not a limiting factor. The game’s 2016-era assets do not require more than 16 GB even at 4K.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 140 FPS average, while Ultra produces 72 FPS average. That is a 49% reduction in frame rate from raising settings to the highest preset.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 185H compare to its nearest CPU rival in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 185H has an average score of 35670. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 scores 35719, which is 0.1% higher. The Intel Core 7 250H scores 35728 (0.2% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X scores 35909 (0.7% higher). All are within 1% of each other.

Q: Does the 4K Medium preset have a consistent frame rate?

A: The 4K Medium preset shows a min FPS of 50, max of 68, and an average of 59. This 18 FPS spread indicates moderate frame pacing variance, but no severe stuttering or drops below 50 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS values are as follows. Low settings produce an average of 214 FPS, with no min or max recorded. Medium settings average 164 FPS, with a min of 139 and max of 189. High settings average 140 FPS, with no min or max recorded. Ultra settings average 109 FPS, with no min or max recorded. The gap from Low to Ultra is 105 FPS, and the Medium preset’s min-max range of 50 FPS suggests some scene-to-scene variance, but overall the 1080p results are smooth and well above any refresh rate a typical gamer would use.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 140 FPS, with no min or max. Medium settings average 107 FPS, with a min of 91 and max of 123 — a 32 FPS range. High settings average 92 FPS, with no min or max. Ultra settings average 72 FPS, with no min or max. The 1440p results show a tighter spread between presets than 1080p, with Low to Ultra dropping by 68 FPS. Even at Ultra, 72 FPS is playable on high-refresh 1440p monitors, though the game’s frame pacing may not be perfectly smooth.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 77 FPS, with no min or max. Medium settings average 59 FPS, with a min of 50 and max of 68. High settings average 50 FPS, with no min or max. Ultra settings average 39 FPS, with no min or max. The 4K results show the first real signs of GPU-bound strain, with High dipping to 50 FPS and Ultra to 39 FPS. The Medium preset’s min of 50 FPS indicates that even at reduced settings, the game occasionally drops to a level that would be noticeable on a 60 Hz display. For 4K gaming, High settings at 50 FPS is the practical ceiling, and Ultra at 39 FPS is best reserved for screenshot verification rather than actual play.

The data set includes no min/max values for most presets, meaning those runs were likely single-scene averages rather than full playthroughs. The Medium presets at each resolution include min and max values, providing a more complete picture of frame variance. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset’s max FPS exceeds the High preset’s average by a significant margin (189 vs 140 at 1080p, 123 vs 92 at 1440p, 68 vs 50 at 4K), suggesting that Medium is the most stable setting tier for consistent performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its 45 W TDP is modest for a high-end mobile part, and the Meteor Lake architecture (7 nm process) includes 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3 cache. In The Technomancer, the CPU’s role is largely peripheral because the game’s engine is GPU-bound at most settings and resolutions. The 214 FPS at 1080p Low is the only scenario where CPU performance might matter, and even there, the frame rate is likely capped by the engine’s draw call throughput rather than the CPU’s raw compute.

The CPU’s benchmarks suggest it is more than capable for any workload The Technomancer presents. Cinebench R23 multicore score is 17984.5, single-core is 1810.5. Geekbench multicore is 11657, single-core 1794. PassMark multithread is 29376, single-thread 3697. These numbers place the CPU in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its average score, so no CPU swap would meaningfully change the FPS in this game. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X, a desktop part with a higher average score of 35909, would likely produce identical frame rates in The Technomancer because the game does not utilize more than a few threads.

The Core Ultra 9 185H’s memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Technomancer’s memory footprint is small by modern standards, and the 24 MB L3 cache is more than sufficient to hold the game’s hot data sets. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.10 GHz is high enough for the game’s single-threaded sections, and the 16 cores provide ample headroom for background tasks while gaming.

The real insight from the CPU data is that The Technomancer is not a CPU-sensitive title for this class of processor. The combo ranks 883rd because the game’s engine has a low performance ceiling, not because the CPU is weak. The 85th percentile CPU percentile versus the 31st percentile combo rank highlights that the game is the bottleneck. A CPU in the 50th percentile paired with the same RTX 4080 would likely score within a few FPS of this combo at any resolution and settings combination. The CPU’s 22 threads are overkill for a 2016 Action RPG, and the game’s AI and physics systems are simple enough that even a quad-core from that era could maintain 60 FPS at 1080p.

For builders, the practical takeaway is that the Core Ultra 9 185H is not the component to upgrade if The Technomancer is the target game. The GPU and the game’s engine define the experience. The CPU’s high single-core score (1810.5 in Cinebench R23, 1794 in Geekbench) ensures it will not be the limiting factor even at high refresh rates, but the game simply does not ask enough of the CPU to differentiate between high-end processors. The measured FPS data confirms this: the 49% drop from Low to Ultra at every resolution is a GPU-side scaling curve, and the 64% drop from 1080p to 4K is a resolution-driven GPU load increase. The CPU stays idle, waiting for the GPU to finish each frame.