The Technomancer

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B570 ranks 2256th out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. That places this configuration in the bottom 20% of all tested systems, indicating that this combination is not well-suited for achieving high frame rates in this particular Action RPG. The ranking reflects a fundamental mismatch: the CPU is exceptionally powerful, sitting in the 96th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits in only the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. The data shows that the Arc B570 becomes the limiting factor across most resolutions and settings, dragging what could otherwise be a high-end system into mid-pack territory.

Benchmark results indicate that this combo's performance profile is heavily dependent on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system delivers playable frame rates across all settings, with the gap between Low and Ultra being roughly 2x. At 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably, and at 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain even 30 FPS on High settings. The ranking reflects this: while the CPU's raw compute scores are among the highest in the database — the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 are class-leading — the GPU's modest 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput cannot keep pace with the demands of higher resolutions.

Compared to other tested combos, this pairing underperforms what the CPU alone would suggest. The Ultra 9 290K Plus averages 84003 across all benchmark tests, putting it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX. However, in gaming scenarios at 4K, the GPU bottleneck dominates, and the system's 29 FPS average on High settings at 3840x2160 places it well below the median combo. The verdict is clear: this is a CPU-heavy build that needs a stronger GPU to realize its potential in The Technomancer.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, codenamed Battlemage, and represents the Arc 5 generation. It features 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU operates at a fixed 2500 MHz for both base and boost clocks, with memory running at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). This memory configuration is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the data shows it becomes a constraint at 4K, where the system averages only 29 FPS on High settings.

The GPU's compute capabilities are modest: 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units, with 18 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s and texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s. These specifications translate to a Passmark G3D score of 14195, placing the B570 in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% ahead in average score), the Intel Arc A750 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (0.5% behind). This competitive positioning explains the measured FPS results: the B570 trades blows with mid-range GPUs but lacks the raw throughput for high-refresh 4K gaming.

In The Technomancer specifically, the GPU's 10 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but the data shows diminishing returns at 3840x2160. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra drops to 22 FPS average, indicating that the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 performance is simply insufficient for max settings at that resolution. The 150 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest a power-efficient card, but efficiency does not translate to frame rate in this title. The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility are modern, yet the Passmark DirectX 12 score of 72 indicates the card's DX12 performance is not a strength.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play The Technomancer with this combo?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings produce playable frame rates. At 1080p, even Ultra settings average 62 FPS, while Low settings reach 121 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra drops to 41 FPS, and at 3840x2160, even High settings only average 29 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The B570's average benchmark score is 20556, which is 0.1% behind the Intel Arc A750 (20582) and 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534). It also sits 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M390X. These are marginal differences, indicating near-identical overall performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the primary bottleneck in gaming scenarios. The CPU's average benchmark score of 84003 places it in the 96th percentile, while the GPU's 20556 average score is in the 65th percentile. At 3840x2160, the system's 22-44 FPS range across settings shows GPU limitations, whereas the CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 suggests it is not the limiting factor.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 2560x1440?

A: At 1440p, the system averages 79 FPS on Low settings, 61 FPS on Medium (with minimum 52 and maximum 70), 52 FPS on High, and 41 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset provides a good balance with a measured minimum of 52 FPS, keeping gameplay above typical 50 FPS thresholds.

Q: Does the Arc B570's 10 GB VRAM cause issues in The Technomancer?

A: The data does not show VRAM capacity as a limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 22 FPS, and at 4K High it averages 29 FPS — these low frame rates are more consistent with the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput rather than memory exhaustion. The 380.0 GB/s bandwidth appears sufficient for the settings tested.

Q: How does this combo rank globally?

A: The combo ranks 2256th out of 2825 tested combinations in The Technomancer, placing it in the bottom 20%. This ranking reflects the GPU's mid-range positioning (65th percentile) rather than the CPU's high-end status (96th percentile), as the game's performance is largely GPU-bound at higher resolutions.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1920x1080, all presets are playable, but the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance: 93 FPS average with a minimum of 79 FPS and maximum of 107 FPS. The High preset at 80 FPS is also viable for users prioritizing visual fidelity, while Ultra at 62 FPS remains smooth. Low at 121 FPS is only recommended for competitive play where maximum frame rates are prioritized over visuals.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, delivering 61 FPS average with a minimum of 52 FPS. This keeps gameplay above the 50 FPS threshold for most users. The High preset at 52 FPS is marginally playable but risks dips below 50 FPS in demanding scenes. Ultra at 41 FPS is not recommended for a smooth experience, and Low at 79 FPS sacrifices too much visual quality for the resolution.

At 3840x2160, the data strongly suggests avoiding this resolution for serious play. The Low preset averages 44 FPS, which is borderline, while Medium averages 33 FPS (minimum 28), High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. None of these provide a consistently smooth experience. Users with 4K displays should either lower resolution to 1440p or accept the Low preset's 44 FPS as the only moderately playable option.

The overall recommendation is to play at 1920x1080 with Medium settings for the best experience, as it provides a 93 FPS average with a comfortable minimum of 79 FPS. For 1440p users, Medium is the sweet spot at 61 FPS average, sacrificing some visual fidelity for playability. The Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions above 1080p, as the performance cost is steep: from 1080p Medium to 1080p Ultra, FPS drops from 93 to 62, and at 1440p the drop is from 61 to 41.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance. The Low preset averages 121 FPS, representing the maximum measured frame rate across all resolutions and settings. Medium averages 93 FPS with a measured range of 79 to 107 FPS, providing a solid baseline. High averages 80 FPS, and Ultra averages 62 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a consistent degradation: each step up in quality costs roughly 20-30% performance, with the largest drop occurring between Medium and High (93 to 80 FPS, a 14% decrease).

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly. Low averages 79 FPS, which is 35% lower than the same settings at 1080p. Medium averages 61 FPS with a range of 52 to 70 FPS, representing a 34% decrease from 1080p Medium. High averages 52 FPS, a 35% reduction from 1080p High. Ultra averages 41 FPS, a 34% drop from 1080p Ultra. The consistent ~34% reduction across all settings indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are scaling predictably with resolution, with the 380.0 GB/s bandwidth and 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate being the limiting factors.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low averages 44 FPS, which is a 44% drop from 1440p Low and a 64% drop from 1080p Low. Medium averages 33 FPS with a minimum of 28 FPS and maximum of 39 FPS, placing it below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay in demanding scenes. High averages 29 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. The 4K data shows that the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is insufficient for this resolution, as even Low settings cannot maintain 60 FPS.

The measured data reveals a clear pattern: the system is well-suited for 1080p gaming across all settings, adequate for 1440p with Medium or lower settings, and only marginally playable at 4K with Low settings. The Medium preset at 1080p (93 FPS) and Medium at 1440p (61 FPS) represent the best performance-per-setting tradeoffs, while Ultra at any resolution above 1080p should be avoided.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The CPU features 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration, providing 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory.

In The Technomancer, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU, but its capabilities ensure no CPU-induced bottlenecks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 demonstrate exceptional processing power. The Passmark multi-thread score of 60860 and single-thread score of 4823 further confirm this. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all processors means it can handle any game's CPU demands, including the physics and AI calculations typical of an Action RPG.

The CPU's nearest rivals in overall benchmark performance are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% ahead), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% ahead), with the AMD EPYC 7F72 trailing by 1.3%. These small percentage differences indicate that the 290K Plus is at the very top of the performance spectrum, though the data shows this does not translate to gaming advantages when paired with a mid-range GPU.

In this specific combo, the CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient for The Technomancer's workload. The game, released in 2016, is unlikely to utilize more than a handful of cores effectively. The CPU's high boost clock of 5.80 GHz ensures strong single-thread performance, which is what most games rely on. However, the measured FPS data shows that the system's performance is capped by the GPU at all resolutions above 1080p, meaning the CPU's power is largely untapped in this title.

The 125 W TDP and 3 nm process node suggest excellent power efficiency, but this does not directly impact frame rates. The CPU's 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die indicate a complex design, yet the gaming results are dictated by the GPU. For users considering this combo, the data suggests that the CPU will not be a limiting factor in The Technomancer, but the GPU will be. Upgrading the GPU would yield far greater performance gains than any CPU change, as the 290K Plus already sits in the 96th percentile of all processors.