The Technomancer

# The Technomancer: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070

This combination pairs a 24-core, 24-thread Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with an 8 GB NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, producing a system that ranks 1179th out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. The CPU's 96th percentile standing among all processors contrasts sharply with the GPU's 61st percentile, indicating a substantial imbalance where the processor is rarely the limiting factor in this 2016 action RPG. Benchmark results across three resolutions and four quality presets reveal a system that delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K with higher settings, with the measured data showing a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus brings formidable processing resources to The Technomancer, with 24 physical cores and 24 threads operating from a 3.70 GHz base clock to a 5.80 GHz boost clock. This Arrow Lake Refresh part, built on a 3 nm TSMC process, houses 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 per core, with the 192 KB L1 per core feeding a design that achieves a 51731 score in Cinebench R23 multicore and 7303 in single-core. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking versus all CPUs places it among the top processors available, and its average benchmark score of 84003 sits just 0.2% above the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, its closest rival.

In the context of The Technomancer, the CPU's role is largely preparatory — ensuring that the game's logic, AI, and physics calculations never bottleneck the graphics pipeline. The measured frame rates show the CPU is more than adequate for this title. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 191 FPS average, a figure that suggests the processor can feed frames far beyond what the RTX 3070 can render at higher settings. The multicore performance, demonstrated by a 21727 Cinebench R20 score and 60860 Passmark multithread score, provides substantial headroom for the game's background simulation tasks. The single-core strength, evidenced by a 4823 Passmark single-thread score, handles the primary game thread efficiently.

Data from nearest rivals reinforces the CPU's position. The Ultra 9 290K Plus outperforms the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2% in average benchmark score, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. These margins, all within 1.5%, indicate that the processor's absolute performance ceiling is not a differentiator in this game; rather, it is the consistency of that performance across varied workloads. The 24 threads, while not fully utilized by a title from 2016, ensure that any multithreaded spikes in The Technomancer's engine are absorbed without frame drops. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and DDR5 support further reduce any potential memory-related stalls, though the game's age means it likely does not exploit this bandwidth fully.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, based on the GA104 chip with Ampere architecture, provides the graphical muscle for this combination. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with base and boost clocks of 1500 MHz and 1725 MHz respectively. The GPU's 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs produce 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores add hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration capabilities, though The Technomancer's era means these features are largely incidental to its rendering pipeline.

The RTX 3070's benchmark results place it in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with a Passmark G3D score of 22214 and an average benchmark score of 17208. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT at 0.7% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 1.0% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 1.1% higher, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c trails by 1.5%. These narrow deltas show the RTX 3070 sits in a competitive performance band, though its age relative to The Technomancer's 2016 release means it comfortably exceeds the game's original hardware targets.

The GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity becomes a relevant factor at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 35 FPS average, suggesting that both memory capacity and compute throughput are strained. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while substantial, must feed 96 ROPs rendering at 8.3 million pixels per frame at 3840x2160. The measured data shows a clear hierarchy: 4K High produces 45 FPS, 4K Medium 53 FPS with a minimum of 45 FPS, and 4K Low 69 FPS. The GPU's 220 W TDP and dual-slot cooler design indicate it operates within standard power envelopes, and the 550 W suggested PSU provides adequate headroom. The 1x 12-pin power connector and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface ensure the card can draw sufficient power and bandwidth for sustained loads.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 84003 on average, just 0.2% above the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's 83807. It also leads the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2%, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%. These margins are small, indicating the CPU's nearest competitors are all within a tight performance band.

Q: What is the RTX 3070's percentile ranking and how does it compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 3070 ranks in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17208. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, scores 17083 and is 0.7% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 and AMD Radeon HD 7970M are 1.0% and 1.1% ahead respectively. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c trails by 1.5% with a score of 17468.

Q: What frame rates can this combo achieve at 1440p with High settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the system averages 82 FPS. This represents a significant step down from the 125 FPS at 1080p High, showing a 34.4% performance drop from the resolution increase. The 1440p High result remains well above playable thresholds for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra performance compare to 1080p Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average frame rate is 35 FPS, while at 1920x1080 Ultra it reaches 98 FPS. This represents a 64.3% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same Ultra preset, demonstrating that the resolution increase places severe demands on the GPU.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 191 FPS, but this drops to 45 FPS at 4K High. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 61st percentile shows a substantial processing headroom, meaning the RTX 3070 cannot fully utilize the Ultra 9 290K Plus's capabilities in this title.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking among tested configurations?

A: This combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 1179th out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. This places it in the upper-middle portion of tested configurations, reflecting the GPU's mid-range positioning despite the high-end CPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 achieves a rank of 1179 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer, placing it in the 58th percentile of tested configurations. This ranking reflects the significant imbalance between the two components: the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in only the 61st percentile among all graphics cards. The system's overall position is therefore dragged down by the GPU, which cannot translate the CPU's substantial processing advantage into proportional frame rate gains in this title.

The CPU's synthetic benchmarks reinforce this assessment. Its 51731 Cinebench R23 multicore score and 7303 single-core score place it among the fastest desktop processors available, yet in The Technomancer, these capabilities remain largely untapped. The game's 2016 release date means its engine was designed for the hardware of that era, and the RTX 3070's performance envelope — while strong for its generation — becomes the binding constraint. The 1179th rank out of 2825 combos suggests that many configurations with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would outperform this pairing in this specific game.

The ranking also reflects how the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity interacts with the game's settings. At 4K Ultra, the system falls to 35 FPS, a figure that would be considered barely playable for an action RPG. The 4K Medium result of 53 FPS with a minimum of 45 FPS shows some headroom, but the overall pattern indicates that this combo is best suited to 1080p or 1440p gaming. The CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads provide no advantage in a title that likely utilizes only a fraction of those resources, making the GPU the clear determinant of the combo's rank.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, with the GPU becoming progressively more dominant as the limiting factor. At Low settings, the system achieves 191 FPS at 1080p, 125 FPS at 1440p, and 69 FPS at 4K. This represents a 34.6% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 44.8% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 63.9%, showing that even at the lowest quality settings, the pixel count increase from 2.1 million to 8.3 million pixels places overwhelming demands on the GPU.

At High settings, the scaling is similar but with lower absolute values: 125 FPS at 1080p, 82 FPS at 1440p, and 45 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 34.4% from 1080p to 1440p and 45.1% from 1440p to 4K, producing a total reduction of 64.0%. Medium settings show 147 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p, and 53 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.7% and 44.8% respectively. Ultra settings produce 98 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K, with drops of 34.7% and 45.3%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all four settings presets is striking. In every case, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces performance by approximately 34-35%, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it by approximately 45%. This uniformity indicates that the GPU's rendering pipeline is the sole bottleneck at all settings and resolutions tested, with the CPU's performance headroom remaining constant regardless of the graphical load. The 4K results, particularly at Ultra where the system produces only 35 FPS, suggest that the 8 GB VRAM capacity and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the highest resolution and quality combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 191 FPS, while Medium averages 147 FPS with a minimum of 125 FPS and maximum of 169 FPS. High settings achieve 125 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 98 FPS average. These figures indicate that 1080p gaming is well within the system's capabilities, with even the most demanding Ultra preset maintaining nearly 100 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance remains strong but shows the expected reduction. Low settings average 125 FPS, Medium averages 96 FPS with a minimum of 82 FPS and maximum of 110 FPS, High achieves 82 FPS, and Ultra produces 64 FPS. The 1440p results demonstrate that this combo can handle higher resolutions comfortably, with all settings maintaining averages above 60 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 82 FPS indicates good frame pacing, though the lack of minimum data for other presets limits further analysis.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations become apparent. Low settings average 69 FPS, Medium averages 53 FPS with a minimum of 45 FPS and maximum of 61 FPS, High produces 45 FPS, and Ultra drops to 35 FPS. The 4K results show that while the system can achieve playable frame rates at Low and Medium settings, High and Ultra presets fall below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for smooth action gameplay. The Medium preset's 45 FPS minimum further indicates potential stuttering during intense scenes. The measured data across all resolutions and settings provides a comprehensive picture of the system's capabilities, showing a clear performance hierarchy that players can use to select appropriate configurations for their display and quality preferences.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired performance level. At 1080p, the Ultra preset's 98 FPS average provides an excellent experience for players with high refresh rate monitors, comfortably exceeding the 60 FPS threshold while delivering maximum visual quality. The High preset's 125 FPS offers even greater headroom for competitive play, while Low at 191 FPS is suitable for esports-style configurations where frame rate takes precedence over visual fidelity.

For 1440p, the High preset's 82 FPS average represents the best balance between visual quality and smoothness, providing a 36.7% improvement over Ultra's 64 FPS while maintaining a more demanding visual experience than Medium's 96 FPS. Players prioritizing frame rate consistency over absolute image quality may prefer Medium at 96 FPS, which also offers a documented minimum of 82 FPS, ensuring smoother gameplay during complex scenes. The Ultra preset at 64 FPS remains playable but leaves little margin for frame drops below 60 FPS.

At 4K, the recommendations become more constrained. The Low preset's 69 FPS average is the only setting that exceeds 60 FPS, but it sacrifices significant visual quality. The Medium preset at 53 FPS with a 45 FPS minimum provides a more balanced experience, though the minimum frame rate may cause noticeable stuttering in action sequences. The High and Ultra presets at 45 FPS and 35 FPS respectively are below the smoothness threshold and should be avoided for active gameplay. For 4K owners, the Medium preset represents the best compromise, delivering playable performance while maintaining reasonable visual fidelity. Alternatively, players with 4K displays could run at 1440p with High or Ultra settings and rely on display scaling, though this would reduce native resolution sharpness. The measured data suggests that this combo's sweet spot is 1440p High, where the 82 FPS average provides a smooth experience without requiring significant visual compromises.