The Technomancer

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

The measured FPS progression for The Technomancer with this pairing shows a steep, consistent drop as resolution climbs, which strongly suggests the GPU is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 143 FPS, but at 4K Low that falls to 51 FPS — a reduction of roughly 64%. The pattern persists across every settings tier, with the scaling curve becoming noticeably steeper as pixel count grows.

Looking at the Medium preset, the only one with complete min/max data, the average FPS moves from 110 at 1080p to 72 at 1440p, then down to 39 at 4K. That is a 35% drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by another 46% drop from 1440p to 4K. The accelerating decline between each resolution step is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload expands faster than the card's throughput can compensate.

The High preset tells a similar story: 94 FPS at 1080p, 61 at 1440p, and 34 at 4K. The relative losses are 35% and 44% respectively. Ultra, the most demanding tier, shows the most dramatic degradation, falling from 73 FPS at 1080p to 48 at 1440p and finally 26 at 4K. The fact that even the Low preset cannot maintain a playable 60 FPS at 4K (it averages 51) indicates that resolution scaling alone is enough to overwhelm the Radeon RX 7600's capabilities.

What does this imply about the limiting component? If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see FPS remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the processor's workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the consistent and substantial FPS erosion with each resolution increase points squarely at the GPU as the primary limiter. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is unlikely to be the constraint in a 2016 Action RPG at these settings; the data aligns with a graphics-bound scenario from 1440p upward.

The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution further reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, the difference between these presets is 70 FPS (143 vs 73), while at 4K it narrows to 25 FPS (51 vs 26). The narrowing gap at higher resolutions suggests that both presets are increasingly constrained by the same GPU ceiling, regardless of how much graphical detail is being rendered. This is a classic signature of pixel throughput limits rather than geometry or shading complexity.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. Its clock speeds are configured at a base of 1720 MHz, a game clock of 2250 MHz, and a boost of 2655 MHz. These specifications place the card in the mid-range tier, and the benchmark data reflects that positioning in The Technomancer.

The card's memory configuration is particularly relevant for a game from 2016. With 8 GB of VRAM, this combo has enough capacity for the game's textures and buffers at 1080p and 1440p, but the 128-bit bus width means memory bandwidth becomes a potential constraint at higher resolutions. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while adequate for the game's era, is not excessive, and the FPS drops observed at 4K suggest that bandwidth pressure compounds with the increased pixel workload.

The GPU's architecture, RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm process, delivers 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s. These figures help explain the 1080p results, where the card can push 143 FPS on Low settings. However, the 4K Ultra performance of 26 FPS shows that the card's fill rate is insufficient for that resolution at maximum detail. The 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs are reasonable for the card's class, but they are not enough to sustain high frame rates at 3840x2160.

The GPU's overall benchmark percentile sits at 57, placing it just above the median of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.2% faster) and the AMD Radeon 680M (0.7% slower). This context helps frame the The Technomancer results: the card is not a high-end part, and the measured FPS aligns with expectations for a mid-range GPU handling a demanding title at high resolutions.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is worth examining more closely. At 1080p, the game runs comfortably within this limit, and the FPS numbers show no signs of memory-related stuttering (the Medium preset shows a minimum of 93 FPS at 1080p). At 4K, however, the combination of higher resolution textures and larger framebuffers could push against the 8 GB ceiling, potentially contributing to the low average FPS of 34 on High and 26 on Ultra. While the data does not explicitly show VRAM spillover, the pattern is consistent with a card that is both compute-bound and memory-bandwidth-limited at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 ranks 1959 out of 2825 tested combos for The Technomancer. That places it in the 69th percentile of all configurations tested, meaning roughly 31% of combinations perform worse and 69% perform better. The rank is a composite measure that accounts for all resolution and settings combinations, giving a single summary of how this hardware pairing handles the game.

Interpreting this rank requires considering the components individually. The CPU, with an average benchmark score of 84003, sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs — a top-tier processor by aggregate performance. The GPU, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 15171 and sits in the 57th percentile of all GPUs — a mid-pack graphics card. The combo rank of 1959/2825 reflects this imbalance: the processor is far more capable than the graphics card, and the overall gaming performance is dragged down by the GPU's limitations.

In aggregate benchmarks, the CPU's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% faster) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% faster). For the GPU, the closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.2% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (0.6% faster). These rival comparisons provide context but do not change the fundamental conclusion: this combo is GPU-limited in The Technomancer, and its rank reflects that constraint.

The rank of 1959 out of 2825 is not a poor showing per se, but it indicates that a significant majority of tested configurations achieve better performance in this game. Given the CPU's high percentile ranking, users with this processor would likely see substantial gains by pairing it with a more powerful GPU. The current rank is a direct consequence of the Radeon RX 7600's mid-range positioning, as evidenced by its 57th percentile GPU score.

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

The measured FPS data covers four resolutions and four settings presets, with twelve total data points. The Medium preset is the only one with both minimum and maximum FPS values recorded across all three resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: 143 FPS average
• Medium: 110 FPS average, with a minimum of 93 and maximum of 126
• High: 94 FPS average
• Ultra: 73 FPS average

These 1080p numbers show a smooth progression across settings, with each step up in quality costing roughly 20-30 FPS. The gap from Low to Ultra is 70 FPS, which is substantial but leaves even the most demanding preset at a playable 73 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably:

• Low: 93 FPS average
• Medium: 72 FPS average, with a minimum of 61 and maximum of 82
• High: 61 FPS average
• Ultra: 48 FPS average

The 1440p results show that the card can maintain smooth gameplay on Low and Medium, but High dips to 61 FPS and Ultra falls to 48 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 61 FPS indicates that even at this setting, there are moments where frame rates hover near the playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the card struggles to maintain playable frame rates:

• Low: 51 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45
• High: 34 FPS average
• Ultra: 26 FPS average

The 4K results are uniformly below 60 FPS, with even the Low preset averaging just 51 FPS. The Ultra preset's 26 FPS average is barely playable, and the Medium preset's minimum of 33 FPS shows that the card can dip into stutter territory. These numbers confirm that 4K gaming is not a realistic option for this combo in The Technomancer, at least not at the settings tested.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best 1080p preset for this combo in The Technomancer?

A: The High preset at 1920x1080 delivers 94 FPS average, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Ultra offers 73 FPS, which is also playable, but the 21 FPS difference between High and Ultra may not justify the visual upgrade depending on preference.

Q: Can this combo handle 1440p gaming?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 93 FPS and Medium averages 72 FPS, both of which are playable. High drops to 61 FPS, which is borderline, and Ultra falls to 48 FPS, which may feel sluggish for some users. The data suggests Medium or Low are the safest choices at 1440p.

Q: Is 4K viable with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 in this game?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only averages 51 FPS, and the Medium preset has a minimum of 33 FPS. The Ultra preset averages just 26 FPS. The card cannot sustain 60 FPS at 4K on any tested setting.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX. It is 1.3% lower than the AMD EPYC 7F72, which scores 85072.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 sits in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15171. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, is 0.2% faster.

Q: Which resolution shows the smallest performance gap between Low and Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160, the gap between Low (51 FPS) and Ultra (26 FPS) is 25 FPS. For comparison, the gap at 1080p is 70 FPS and at 1440p it is 45 FPS. The narrowed gap at 4K indicates the GPU is the bottleneck regardless of settings.

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

The measured data provides a clear picture of which presets offer the best balance of performance and quality at each resolution. For a target of 60 FPS or higher, the choices are straightforward.

At 1920x1080, the High preset at 94 FPS is the recommended choice. It provides a solid margin above 60 FPS while maintaining significantly higher visual quality than Low or Medium. The Ultra preset at 73 FPS is also viable, but the 21 FPS loss compared to High may be noticeable in fast-paced combat sequences. The Medium preset at 110 FPS is an option for users prioritizing frame rate, but High offers a better quality-to-performance ratio without dropping below playable thresholds.

At 2560x1440, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 93 FPS is the only setting that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 72 FPS is playable but has a minimum of 61 FPS, meaning it can dip close to the threshold during demanding scenes. High at 61 FPS has no headroom, and Ultra at 48 FPS falls below the target. For 1440p, the data suggests Medium is the best compromise, offering 72 FPS average with acceptable minimums, while Low is the safer choice for consistent performance.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The Low preset at 51 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but it still falls short. For users who insist on 4K, Low is the only recommendation, and even then, the experience will involve frame rates below the ideal threshold. The Medium preset at 39 FPS and High at 34 FPS are likely to feel sluggish, and Ultra at 26 FPS is not recommended for any gameplay scenario.

The overall recommendation is to play at 1080p High for the best balance, or 1440p Medium if higher resolution is preferred and a slight performance compromise is acceptable. The data does not support 4K as a viable option for this combo.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. It operates at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts to 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. This is an extremely capable processor, as evidenced by its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 84003.

In The Technomancer, the CPU's role appears to be secondary to the GPU, given the FPS scaling patterns observed. The game's release date of 2016-06-27 means it was designed for processors of that era, and the Ultra 9 290K Plus far exceeds the requirements of a game from that period. The 24 cores and 24 threads provide ample parallel processing capability, and the 5.80 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance where it matters for game logic.

The CPU's cache configuration includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This large cache hierarchy helps reduce memory latency, which can benefit game performance, particularly in scenarios with complex AI or scripting. However, the measured FPS data suggests that these CPU advantages are not the limiting factor in this game, as the performance drops are consistently tied to resolution increases.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% faster) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% faster). These deltas are small, indicating that the 290K Plus is well-positioned within its performance class. The CPU's PassMark scores further illustrate its capabilities: a multithread score of 60860, a single-thread score of 4823, and a physics score of 3315. These numbers indicate strong raw processing power that is underutilized in The Technomancer, which is a GPU-bound title at the resolutions tested.

The fact that the combo ranks 1959 out of 2825 in this game, despite having a top-tier CPU, underscores the imbalance between the two components. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see FPS remain relatively stable across resolutions. Instead, the significant FPS drops at higher resolutions confirm that the CPU is not the constraint. The 24-core processor has ample headroom, and the game's performance is dictated almost entirely by the Radeon RX 7600's graphics capabilities. Users with this CPU would likely see dramatic FPS improvements in this game by upgrading the GPU, as the processor has demonstrated it can feed far more powerful graphics cards without becoming a limiting factor.