The Technomancer

The Technomancer is a 2016 Action RPG that stresses systems unevenly, and this pairing of an Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces one of the most lopsided results in the benchmark database. The combo ranks 2738 out of 2825 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 3% of all pairings. That rank is not a reflection of the CPU, which sits in the 96th percentile of all processors, but rather a direct consequence of the GPU's position in the 40th percentile of all graphics cards. The data shows a system where the processor is effectively idle waiting on the graphics card at every resolution and setting tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The 2738th place finish out of 2825 combos puts this pairing in the bottom tier for The Technomancer specifically. This is a game that rewards graphics throughput heavily, and the GTX 1650 simply cannot deliver the frame rates that modern CPUs enable. The CPU alone scores 84003 on average across all benchmark tests, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. That puts it ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807, a delta of 0.2%. It also edges out the AMD EPYC 4584PX, which scores 83090, a delta of 1.1%, and the AMD EPYC 9135, which scores 82980, a delta of 1.2%. The only rival that beats it is the AMD EPYC 7F72, which scores 85072, putting it 1.3% ahead.

The GPU tells a very different story. The GTX 1650 averages 7472 across all GPU benchmarks, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.6% behind). The only card it trails in its immediate vicinity is the Intel Arc A310 at 7550, which is 1% faster. This means the GPU is competing with integrated graphics and decade-old mobile parts, while the CPU is trading blows with server-class EPYC chips. The result in The Technomancer is predictable: the GPU becomes the bottleneck at every measurable point, and the combo rank reflects that fundamental imbalance rather than any flaw in the processor.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is built on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process. It has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The base clock runs at 1485 MHz, with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. Memory is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2001 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective. The card's pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s. Floating point performance comes to 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32 and 5.967 TFLOPS for FP16 using a 2:1 ratio. The card draws 75 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

In The Technomancer, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM is a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings. The game's texture demands exceed what 4 GB can comfortably hold at 4K, which contributes to the low frame rates seen there. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s also becomes a constraint when the game tries to stream geometry and textures simultaneously. The card's DirectX 12 score of 35 in Passmark, compared to its DirectX 11 score of 58, suggests that this GPU handles older APIs better. The Technomancer, being a 2016 title, likely uses DirectX 11 paths, which is why the card performs relatively better at lower settings where those paths are more efficient. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 is extremely low, but that test is far more demanding than this game's actual workload.

The GPU's benchmark results show a Passmark G3D score of 7880 and a Passmark G2D score of 561. Compute performance is 3048 in Passmark GPU Compute, while Geekbench OpenCL scores 29629 and Vulkan scores 33042. These numbers confirm that the card is entry-level by modern standards, but for a 2016 game, it should be capable of playable frame rates at 1080p with settings turned down. The measured FPS data in The Technomancer confirms this, with the card delivering 68 FPS at 1080p Low settings.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and consistent across all settings, which indicates the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 45 at 1080p to 29 at 1440p to 16 at 4K. That is a 36% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and another 45% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Low settings, the numbers are 68 FPS at 1080p, 44 at 1440p, and 24 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 35%, and from 1440p to 4K it is 45%. At Medium settings, the averages are 52 FPS at 1080p, 34 at 1440p, and 19 at 4K. The pattern holds: about a 35% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, then a 44% reduction from 1440p to 4K.

This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior. The CPU is not changing its workload based on resolution; it sends the same draw calls regardless of whether the output is 1080p or 4K. The GPU, however, has to render four times as many pixels at 4K compared to 1080p. The fact that the FPS drops by roughly half when going from 1440p to 4K, rather than dropping to a quarter, suggests that other bottlenecks like memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity are also coming into play. At 1080p, the GTX 1650 can keep up with the game's demands at Low and Medium settings, but at 4K, even Low settings produce only 24 FPS, which is barely playable.

The Ultra settings show the same trend but at lower absolute numbers: 35 FPS at 1080p, 23 at 1440p, and 13 at 4K. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 33 FPS, which is nearly double the performance difference. This means that the game's Ultra preset adds significant GPU load that this card cannot handle. The data clearly shows that resolution scaling is not CPU-limited; if it were, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions until the CPU became the bottleneck. Instead, the FPS drops are proportional to the pixel count increase, which is the signature of a GPU-limited system.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the GTX 1650 delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 68 FPS, which is smooth and playable. Medium settings drop to 52 FPS, still acceptable for most players. High settings yield 45 FPS, which is borderline but workable. Ultra settings fall to 35 FPS, which is marginal for an action RPG where timing matters. The Medium preset at 1080p has a minimum FPS of 44 and a maximum of 60, showing that the frame time variance is moderate but stable enough for gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops become more pronounced. Low settings average 44 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium settings average 34 FPS, with a minimum of 29 and a maximum of 39. High settings drop to 29 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play. Ultra settings fall to 23 FPS, which is choppy and will hurt the experience. The minimum FPS at 1440p Medium is 29, which means there are moments where the game stutters noticeably.

At 3840x2160, the card is overwhelmed. Low settings average 24 FPS, which is technically running but not enjoyable. Medium settings average 19 FPS, with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 22. High settings drop to 16 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 13 FPS. None of these results are playable in a meaningful sense. The frame rates at 4K are below the threshold for even basic interactivity, and the minimum FPS values confirm that the card cannot maintain any semblance of smoothness.

The measured data shows that the GTX 1650 has a usable range from 1080p Low to 1080p Medium, with 1080p High being a compromise. At 1440p, only Low settings approach playability. At 4K, no settings produce a playable experience. The gap between Low and Ultra at any given resolution is consistent, with Ultra being roughly half the FPS of Low. This suggests that the game's Ultra preset doubles the GPU workload compared to Low, which is a significant jump for this card.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. It has 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. It supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The processor is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU is a powerhouse. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 51731, and single-core scores 7303. Cinebench R20 multi-core scores 21727, and single-core scores 3067. Cinebench R15 multi-core scores 5214, and single-core scores 736. Passmark multi-thread scores 60860, single-thread scores 4823, and the average benchmark score is 84003. The CPU's percentile rank of 96 means it outperforms 96% of all CPUs tested. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, is only 0.2% behind, which is within measurement noise.

The CPU also shows strong results in specialized tests. Passmark data compression scores 698346, data encryption scores 52563, extended instructions score 52338, and floating point math scores 214760. Integer math scores 166194, random string sorting scores 79744, and find prime numbers scores 503. Physics scores 3315. These numbers indicate that the CPU is not the limiting factor in The Technomancer. The game's workload is primarily GPU-bound, and the CPU's 24 cores and high boost clock are more than sufficient to feed the GTX 1650.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and dual-channel DDR5 support ensure that there is no memory bottleneck. The game likely uses only a few threads, but the CPU's single-core performance, as shown by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303, is more than adequate. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz provides the low-latency response that action RPGs need for input processing and game logic. In this pairing, the CPU is never the constraint; it is waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data points to 1080p Low as the only fully comfortable setting for this combo. At 68 FPS average, it provides headroom above the 60 FPS target, and the lack of reported minimum FPS suggests stable frame times. For players who want better visuals, 1080p Medium at 52 FPS is a reasonable compromise, with a minimum of 44 FPS that stays above the playability threshold. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a balance between visual fidelity and smoothness that suits this action RPG.

At 1080p High, the average drops to 45 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target but still playable for many. However, the lack of a reported minimum FPS means there is uncertainty about frame time consistency. Given that the Medium preset shows a minimum of 44 FPS, High settings likely dip lower. For a game that requires timing for combat and dodging, the extra visual detail at High is not worth the risk of stutter. Ultra at 1080p is not recommended, as 35 FPS average will feel sluggish for an action RPG.

At 1440p, the only viable option is Low settings, which average 44 FPS. This is borderline playable, but the frame rate is below the 60 FPS target and may feel inconsistent. Medium at 1440p drops to 34 FPS, which is too low for comfortable play. High and Ultra at 1440p are not viable options. At 4K, no setting produces a playable experience, with even Low averaging only 24 FPS. Players should avoid 4K entirely with this GPU.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium. It offers 52 FPS average, a minimum of 44 FPS, and a maximum of 60 FPS. This provides a stable frame rate that keeps the game responsive while still allowing some visual detail. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 16 FPS on average, but the visual improvement in texture quality and shadow detail is noticeable in a game like The Technomancer, which relies on atmospheric environments. For players with a 1440p monitor, dropping to 1080p and running Medium will provide a better experience than running 1440p Low, as the frame rate will be higher and more consistent.

The data shows that this combo's potential is entirely limited by the GTX 1650. The CPU is capable of far more, but it is held back by the GPU at every turn. For anyone using this pairing, the recommendation is clear: use 1080p Medium for the best balance of visual quality and performance. If frame rate is the absolute priority, 1080p Low at 68 FPS is the smoothest option. Avoid 1440p and 4K unless you are willing to accept frame rates below 30 FPS, which will degrade the gameplay experience in an action RPG that demands quick reactions and precise timing.