The Technomancer

The Technomancer, an Action RPG that launched in the same year as many other titles, is the target game for this combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus processor with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 graphics card. The data included in this report is measured (not simulated), placing the combo at 213th out of 3,696 tested combinations. The CPU alone posts an average benchmark score of 84,003, ranking above 96% of all processors, while the GPU carries an average score of 54,247, ranking above 86% of all tested graphics cards. Together, this pairing delivers 55 to 298 frames per second depending on resolution and settings, with the largest leaps coming from the high-core-count CPU and the 24-core/24-thread workload balance.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured data for The Technomancer places the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 lot at rank 213 out of 3,696 combos. This is a comfortably high placement—the upper fraction of the tested sample—driven primarily by the CPU's benchmark standing. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus achieves an average Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303, and its 96th percentile versus all tested processors confirms a top echelon position. The RTX 4080's percentile is slightly lower (86), yet the GPU still holds headroom to make the composite rank strong.

Comparisons to immediate neighbors illustrate how tight the top of the CPU market is. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus edges out the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K by just 0.2 percent in average score, and it outperforms the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1 percent and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2 percent. The only ideal rival in the packed group is the AMD EPYC 7F72, which leads by a -1.3 percent delta. On the GPU side, the RTX 4080 is aligned with the RTX 4080 SUPER within 0.1 percent, but it trails the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X by 1.1 percent, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 2.6 percent, and the AMD Radeon 8060S by 2.7 percent. That GPU spread has minimal effect on this particular game, since the measured frame rates at high settings show the GPU still acceptable headroom.

The combination's raw position—213 of 3,696—is high but not the top, reflecting that The Technomancer centers more on memory and core sheet than on the fastest single-thread CPU. Given the CPU's 96th percentile and the GPU's 86th percentile, the overall rank is pulled up by the effective multi-threading across 24 cores, making this combo particularly strong at lower resolutions where the CPU's robust single-thread (score of 7,303 in R23 single-core) matters; at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes limiting.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is built on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture and features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This is a multi-thread dominate processor, and it carries a TDP of 125 watts. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared, with 192 KB per-core L1 and 2 MB per-core L2, which demonstrates the large-on-chip cache that helps with the per-thread locality. The CPU's 5-nanometer TSMC process contains 17,800 million transistors, giving it an average benchmark score of 84,003 than the overwhelming majority of all CPUs.

In The false Technomancer, which has no heavy simulation demands, the 24 cores/24 threads remain largely heavy, but the single-thread performance still shows boundary. The R20 single-core score is 3,067, and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303 percent solid single-thread growth. At 1080p Low settings, the combo hits a massive 298 FPS, which is a strong indicator that even at low resolution, the limit is another component, typically the engine. The CPU's 96th percentile means in a game like this, any lower-end processor would bottleneck; here, the frames never appear CPU-bound.

NearestRival comparison on the CPU side shows the Core Ultra 9 290K+ is a dominant compute engine in this database. It accomplish multi-core results much higher than the prior generation: 21,727 in the Cinebench R20 multi-core test (compared to the 245–237 score from the EPYC 4534), but only taking a 0.8 percent point over the Core 9 285K. For a 2016 onward action RPG, the high core count means that background tasks, threading the game's engine, and any accumulated logic from its art style all get processed without bottlenecking the frame pipeline. The data indicates that at 1080p Low (298 avg) and 1440p Low (195 avg), the CPU and GPU combination is still in the headroom; neither component is the absolute limit.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5000 provides 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 265-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 720.8 GB/s by the table. Its base clock is 2,205 MHz and it boosts to 2,505 MHz, working from an Ada Lovelace generation on 5 nm TSMC node, with an Intel 45-thousand-21 billion transistors. The pixel rate is 1,204.93 M pixels per second (280.6 (Thus) PPixels/s) and texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s. In terms of compute FP32, the card outputs close to 50 TFLOPS (specified 48.74 TFLOPS).

This is the highest-specified component of the pair, but in The Technomancer, the 4K Ultra preset begins to stress VRAM and pixel pipelines. At 4K Ultra the combo only reaches 998 frames per second, while the 4K Low reaches 107. For a 2019 engine, the memory bus width and 16GB are not maximum, yet high resolution still results in noticeable decline. The GPU's own percentile ranking is 86th, slightly behind the core CPU.

In comparison to neighboring GPUs, the RTX 4080 matches the 4080 SUPER essentially evenly (a 0.1 percent difference), but is 1.1 percent lower than the Radeon RX W5700X-era and 2.6 percent lower than the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB. The nearest rival AMD Radeon RG 9050 is more recent, but the RTX 4080 holds to it in average. In this game, the GPU's role is more evident at 4K, where the heavy settings (Ultra, 55 FPS) drop toward playable is below, while at lower resolutions, the GPU still leaves on a comfortable threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this recovery covers three resolutions and four settings each. Without any further smoothing, here are the exact averages (and min/max for Medium where those were recorded):

Azimuth 4K Ultra, High, Medium, Low, with Medium min/max noted.

• 4K (3840x2160): Ultra average 55; High average 70; Medium average 82 (min 70, max 94); Low average 107.

• 2K (2560x1440): Ultra average 100; High average 128; Medium average 149 (min 127, max 172); Low average 195.

• 1080p (1920x1080): Ultra average 152; High average 195; Medium average 229 (min 194, max 263); Low average 298.

From 1080p Low to 4K Ultra, the spread goes from 298 to 55 across the combinations, indicating that the Low preset at full HD allows the CPU to show its full power, while the Ultra preset at 4K taxes the renderer heavily. The game's settings hierarchy is consistent: for each setting, increasing resolution cycles drops the average.

At the Medium preset, the frame range from min to max shows tightened fluctuations. At 4K Medium, the min is 7. likely a sign of a short dur to a scripted scene? Although not reliable, at 1440p Medium the min is 127, while 1080p Medium min is 194. The full database only includes these three sets of min/max.

In FPS, the 1080p Low preset still lays out 298 frames per second, which is more than enough for a G-Sync display at any refresh; even the 4K High preset at 70 FPS aligns with a standard display, while the 4K Ultra at 55 FPS dips below the typical 6. The game’s six-years engine shows lower resolution performance with high average.

FAQ

Q: What is the rank of this combination in The Technomancer?

A: The combo in ranked 21th of 3,696 tested combos.

Q: Does the CPU or PC any single thing cause a bottleneck?

A: Based from measurements, the GPU becomes a limiting factor at 4K Ultra, where the average slide to 55 FPS; at 1080p Low the result (298 FPS) aligns with the CPU’s own high benchmarks (R23 multi-core 51,731), so no single part clear under low workloads.

Q: Which of these frames is the typical maximum?

A: The maximum recorded average is 298 FPS at 1080p Low, while the lowest recorded average is 55 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: Is there any advantage to using the Medium preset?

A: The Medium preset yields a plateau: 229 FPS at 1080p (min 194, max 263), 149 FPS at 1440 (min 127, max 172), and 82 FPS at 4K (min 70, max 94). It allows FPS to match High with a more balanced trade look.

Q: How does the CPU’s raw score compare to its neighbors?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus averages 84,003 (in overall tests), which is better than the Core Ultra 9 285K by 0.2 percent, above the O2-based AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the EPYC 9135 by 1.2

Settings Recommendation

From the observed rows, the Medium preset gives a balanced experience all across resolutions. At 1080p, Medium yields a 229 average FPS with max of 263, also a min of 194, which is already quadruple the 60 measures required for a smooth panel. At 1440p, Medium provides 49 average and a minimum 02, which holds near 60+ on all engines for most—the min of 127 ensures stable. For 4K, Medium returns 82 average (§). This preset obviously did balance.

The High preset is also strong at 4K (70 average) but is below the better-stable Medium at 82 above. In contrast, Ultra only 152 at 1080 (still great), but at 4K it dips to 55, which may cause micro-stutter on some monitors. Because of this, Medium is the most robust option when switching resolution, preserving high frame average without collapsing at 4K.

If frame rate is to priority, Low behaves the highest in all cases; at 1080p it hits 298 FPS. But the Pre—could reduce visual effects. The FPS difference implies that even at Medium, the system is would not limiting.

Resolution Scale scaling

Reading across resolutions, the same setting values show clear reductions. For the Low preset, the average from from 1988p to 1440p goes 298 to 195, and 4K is only 107. That is a 2.8x drop from 1080p to 4K, but the linear scaling indicates a GPU/engine limitation rather than pure pixel current. At the High preset, 195 → 128 → 70 (1080p to 4K). At Ultra: 152 → 100 → 55. At Medium: 15/50 on without min/max: 229 → 149 → 82 (measured boards).

The short jumps from 1440p to 4K for the Ultra (100 to 55) mark the render block of the 4K pixel count going beyond the strength of the storage. By contrast, the Low preset resulting from 195 to 107 (1.8x) is still clear. This suggests that at lower settings the CPU is following the direction; at Ultra, the GPU polys are the constraint, not the chip.

In terms of resolving which component is more significant: at 1080p all presets succeed in 152–298, which stresses the need for strong single- and fast thread. At 4K Ultra 55–107, the RTX 4080's 56% bandwidth can't maintain the full permanent beat, so the scale shows CPU headroom remains—we wait. The measured outcome is a smooth:

• Ultra preset ends up at 1080p 152 and 4K 1055, demonstrating a 2.75:1 ratio.
• The largest relative drop occurs at 2160p Medium (82 from 1440p 149) provides a.

Thus, pricey which component confines? The order shows: at low resolutions the battleground is the CPU 3.70–5.80 GHz model; at 4K it's the GPU's graphics pipeline