The Technomancer

The Technomancer, a 2016 Action RPG, exhibits a profound performance bottleneck when paired with the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B370. Benchmark results place this combination at rank 2603 out of 2825 tested combos, indicating that gameplay is severely constrained by the graphics subsystem. The measured FPS data shows a stark reality: this configuration is not viable for smooth play at any modern resolution, with the most playable results appearing only at 1080p on Low settings.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario, but with an unusually steep performance cliff. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 71 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 47 FPS, a 34% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 26 FPS, representing a 63% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern indicates that the Intel Arc B370, which is an integrated graphics solution with a 25 W TDP, is the limiting component; the CPU's substantial compute headroom cannot compensate for the GPU's inability to fill pixels at higher resolutions.

The trend is consistent across all settings presets. For High settings, the average FPS goes from 47 at 1080p, to 31 at 1440p (a 34% drop), and down to 17 at 4K (a 64% drop from 1080p). Medium settings show a similar trajectory: 55 FPS at 1080p, 36 FPS at 1440p, and 20 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings, which are the most demanding, start at 37 FPS at 1080p, drop to 24 FPS at 1440p, and bottom out at 13 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across presets confirms that resolution scaling is the primary factor, and the performance penalty for moving from 1080p to 4K is consistently around 60-65%, regardless of the visual quality level.

This data suggests that the game's engine is not heavily dependent on CPU resources at these resolutions. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, is not the bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between 1080p and 4K, as the GPU would have more headroom at lower resolutions. Instead, the FPS falls sharply as resolution increases, which is the hallmark of a GPU that is saturated with pixel-pushing work. The 4K results, which hover between 13 and 26 FPS depending on settings, are essentially unplayable and illustrate that this integrated GPU is only suitable for the lowest resolution and settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings is the only configuration that achieves an average FPS above 60, with a measured average of 71 FPS. All other tested configurations fall below this threshold, with 1080p Medium averaging 55 FPS and 1080p High averaging 47 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus a bottleneck in The Technomancer?

A: No. The benchmark results indicate the CPU is not the limiting factor. The CPU has a high average benchmark score of 84003 and ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The FPS drops are directly correlated with resolution increases, which points to the GPU as the primary constraint.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw GPU compute?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 (a -0.2% deltaPct), and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190 (a -0.5% deltaPct). It is slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000, which scores 1168 (a 1.4% deltaPct).

Q: Can this system run The Technomancer at 4K?

A: Technically, yes, but the results are not playable. The highest average FPS at 3840x2160 is 26 FPS on Low settings. High settings yield 17 FPS, Medium yields 20 FPS, and Ultra yields 13 FPS. All of these are far below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS on Low settings is 71. On Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 37. This represents a 48% reduction in performance moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the game engine utilize the CPU's multi-threading capabilities effectively?

A: The data does not provide direct CPU utilization stats for The Technomancer. However, the minimal FPS change between 1080p and 4K, despite the CPU's high multi-core performance (scoring 51731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core), suggests that the engine is not heavily dependent on the CPU for this workload, and the GPU is the decisive factor.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a high-end desktop processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its benchmark scores are formidable, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. It also achieves a PassMark single-thread score of 4823 and a multithread score of 60860. This compute power places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which has an average score of 83807 and is 0.2% behind.

In the context of The Technomancer, however, this CPU power appears to be largely untapped. The measured FPS data shows a clear GPU bottleneck. For instance, at 1080p Low, the system produces 71 FPS, but at 4K Low, it only produces 26 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively stable as resolution increases, since the CPU's workload (game logic, physics, AI) remains constant. The observed drop indicates that the CPU is waiting on the GPU to complete its rendering tasks.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and its support for DDR5 memory are not the constraining factors here. The game's performance is not limited by the processor's ability to feed data to the GPU, but rather by the GPU's raw output capability. This is further supported by the fact that the CPU's boost clock of 5.80 GHz and its 36 MB of shared L3 cache provide ample single-threaded performance for older game engines like the one used in The Technomancer. The data suggests that pairing this powerful CPU with the integrated Arc B370 GPU creates a massive imbalance, where the CPU is over-provisioned for the GPU's capabilities.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across all settings. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from a high of 71 on Low settings to a low of 37 on Ultra. The Medium preset averages 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 63. The High preset averages 47 FPS. This resolution is the only one where any preset approaches a playable frame rate, and even then, only the Low preset exceeds the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops significantly. The Low preset averages 47 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. The High preset averages 31 FPS, the Medium preset averages 36 FPS (with a min of 30 and max of 41), and the Ultra preset averages 24 FPS. None of these results are suitable for smooth gameplay, as they all fall below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal at best. The Low preset averages 26 FPS, which is the highest average at this resolution. The Medium preset averages 20 FPS (min 17, max 23), the High preset averages 17 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 13 FPS. All 4K results are well below playable thresholds, indicating that this configuration is not intended for 4K gaming.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: each step down in resolution provides a roughly 1.5x increase in FPS. For example, going from 4K Low (26 FPS) to 1440p Low (47 FPS) is a 1.8x improvement, and going from 1440p Low to 1080p Low (71 FPS) is a 1.5x improvement. This linear scaling is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering workload is directly proportional to the number of pixels. The lack of min/max FPS data for most presets prevents a full analysis of frame time consistency, but the available data for Medium presets shows a stable range, with the 1080p Medium having a 16 FPS spread and the 1440p Medium having an 11 FPS spread.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Its memory is "System Shared," which means it relies on the main system RAM, and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." The GPU features 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical performance is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1). The TDP is only 25 W, which is typical for an integrated solution.

The benchmark results for this GPU are poor. It scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This score is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, which are all older, low-end discrete or mobile GPUs. For example, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (-0.2% deltaPct), and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (-0.5% deltaPct). This puts the Arc B370's performance in the same class as GPUs from over a decade ago, which is consistent with its integrated nature.

In The Technomancer, this GPU is the undisputed bottleneck. The 3DMark score of 1184 is a clear predictor of the low FPS observed in the game. The GPU's 20 ROPs and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for handling the pixel fill requirements of 1440p and 4K resolutions. The texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, while not the primary constraint, also limits the ability to render detailed textures at higher settings. The fact that the GPU is an IGP with shared system memory means it has no dedicated VRAM, which can further impact performance in texture-heavy scenes, although the exact impact is not quantifiable from the given data. The data indicates that this GPU is only suitable for 1080p gaming at the lowest settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for The Technomancer with this hardware is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces an average of 71 FPS. This is the only preset that achieves a frame rate above 60 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for smooth gameplay. All other settings at 1080p result in sub-60 FPS averages: Medium at 55 FPS, High at 47 FPS, and Ultra at 37 FPS.

At 1440p, no preset is recommended for a good experience. The best result is Low at 47 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium at 36 FPS and High at 31 FPS are marginal, and Ultra at 24 FPS is not recommended. For players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, 1080p Medium at 55 FPS might be an acceptable compromise, as it offers better visuals than Low while maintaining a frame rate that is close to the 60 FPS target. However, the data suggests that this is a "best effort" scenario.

At 4K, all settings are effectively unplayable, with averages ranging from 13 FPS on Ultra to 26 FPS on Low. These frame rates are below the threshold for interactive gameplay and should be avoided. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely for this game and this hardware combination.

The data also shows a clear pattern: the performance gap between settings is consistent across resolutions. For example, the difference between Low and Ultra is roughly 48% at 1080p (71 FPS vs 37 FPS). This suggests that the visual quality improvements from Low to Ultra come at a significant cost, and players should prioritize frame rate by selecting the Low preset. The Medium preset, with its measured min/max of 47-63 FPS at 1080p, provides a more consistent frame time experience than the High or Ultra presets, which do not have min/max data, but its average of 55 FPS is still below the ideal target. For the best experience, stick to 1080p Low.