The Technomancer

The Technomancer presents an unusually demanding workload for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 760M combination, with measured results placing this pairing near the absolute bottom of the database. The data shows a system that is fundamentally constrained by its graphics processor, yet the CPU’s specific architecture still shapes the experience in meaningful ways. This analysis examines how the core configuration, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics interact with a 2016 Action RPG to produce frame rates that are often below playable thresholds.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process node. Its base clock of 2.10 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz provide a wide frequency range, but the chip’s thermal design point of 25 W suggests that sustained multi-core loads will be limited by power delivery. The processor carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache, with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, and supports dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. That memory bandwidth figure is crucial because the Radeon 760M relies on system memory for its frame buffer, making the CPU’s memory controller a direct bottleneck for graphics performance.

Benchmark data indicates that the Core Ultra X9 388H is a strong general-purpose processor, sitting in the 88th percentile among all CPUs. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 and single-core score of 2200.5 reflect solid compute capability, while Passmark integer math (90882) and floating-point math (112550) scores confirm balanced throughput. However, the nearest rivals in the database — the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, Intel Core i9-13950HX, AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and Intel Core i5-13600 — all average within 0.5% of this chip’s aggregate score, meaning the CPU is not exceptional relative to its peers. For The Technomancer, the question is whether the game leverages these threads effectively. The game’s 2016 release date suggests it was designed for older multi-core processors, and the measured frame rates at 1080p Low (48 FPS) versus 4K Low (17 FPS) indicate that the CPU is not the primary limiter — the GPU saturates long before the CPU’s 16 threads are fully exercised.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The measured combination of the Core Ultra X9 388H and Radeon 760M achieves a rank of 2817 out of 2825 tested combos in The Technomancer. That places it in the bottom 0.3% of all systems in the database, which is a stark outcome for a CPU that otherwise scores in the 88th percentile. The discrepancy highlights that this game’s performance is almost entirely dictated by the GPU, and the integrated Radeon 760M is simply not equipped for the title’s rendering demands. The GPU itself ranks in the 35th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 6019 — nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, deltaPct 0.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, deltaPct 0.3%).

What this ranking implies is that while the CPU could comfortably handle the game’s logic, AI, and physics calculations, the frame rate is capped by the GPU’s pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The combo rank of 2817 out of 2825 means only eight other tested configurations performed worse, which aligns with the GPU’s low percentile score. For context, the Radeon 760M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, deltaPct 0.4%) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, deltaPct -0.5%), but none of these are gaming-focused parts, and the data shows they all cluster around the same performance tier. The takeaway is that this combo is not competitive for The Technomancer, regardless of the CPU’s strengths.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

Resolution scaling data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound performance. At 1080p Low, the system averages 48 FPS; dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 32 FPS (a 33% decrease), and at 4K Low the average falls to 17 FPS (a further 47% decrease). This steep decline as pixel count rises is a classic signature of a graphics-limited scenario, where the CPU can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them. The same trend appears across all settings: at High settings, 1080p averages 32 FPS, 1440p averages 21 FPS, and 4K averages 11 FPS — each step down by roughly a third to a half.

The implication is that the Radeon 760M’s 512 shading units and 16 ROPs are overwhelmed by the pixel fill requirements of higher resolutions. The GPU’s boost clock of 2599 MHz and pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s are not sufficient for 4K output, and the system-shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the CPU’s LPDDR5X controller further compounds the issue. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect frame rates to remain more stable across resolutions, since the processor’s workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the measured FPS drops proportionally with resolution, confirming that the integrated GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU’s dual-channel memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s is itself a constraint, but the GPU’s compute throughput (5.323 TFLOPS FP32) is the harder ceiling.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its highest frame rates: Low averages 48 FPS, Medium averages 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 and maximum of 43, High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1080p is the only resolution where the game approaches playability, and only at Low or Medium settings. The Medium preset’s 37 FPS average with a 32 FPS minimum suggests occasional stutter, while High and Ultra drop below the 30 FPS threshold that most players consider acceptable.

At 2560x1440, the averages fall to 32 FPS on Low, 24 FPS on Medium (with a 21 FPS minimum and 28 FPS maximum), 21 FPS on High, and 16 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 16 FPS, which is a 50% performance penalty for enabling the highest quality settings. At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates: Low averages 17 FPS, Medium averages 13 FPS (with an 11 FPS minimum and 15 FPS maximum), High averages 11 FPS, and Ultra averages 9 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 9 FPS is effectively a slideshow, and even the Low preset at 4K does not exceed 17 FPS. Across all resolutions, the Medium preset includes min/max data that shows frame time variance — for example, at 1080p Medium the spread from 32 to 43 FPS indicates inconsistent frame pacing, which can feel worse than a steady lower frame rate.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo can achieve in The Technomancer?

A: The highest measured average is 48 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or settings combination exceeds this figure.

Q: How does the CPU’s benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, scores 44573, which is 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i5-13600 scores 44240 (0.5% lower).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K Low, the average FPS is 17, while at 1080p Low it is 48. This 65% drop as resolution quadruples shows that the Radeon 760M cannot keep up with the pixel workload, whereas the CPU’s performance would not degrade with resolution.

Q: What is the difference in frame rate between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 32 FPS, while Ultra averages 16 FPS. That is a 16 FPS difference, meaning Ultra delivers exactly half the frame rate of Low.

Q: Does the GPU’s benchmark score place it above or below the median?

A: The Radeon 760M is in the 35th percentile among all GPUs, meaning it performs better than 35% of tested graphics cards. Its average benchmark score is 6019.

Q: How many tested combos rank below this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: This combo ranks 2817 out of 2825, meaning only 8 tested combinations perform worse in The Technomancer.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Given the measured frame rates, the only reasonable choice for playable performance is 1080p with Low settings, which averages 48 FPS. This is the sole configuration that exceeds the 30 FPS threshold, though it still falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 37 FPS with a 32 FPS minimum, which is borderline — some players might prefer the visual improvements of Medium, but the risk of drops below 30 FPS is real. The High preset at 1080p drops to 32 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS, making both less desirable.

At 1440p, the data shows that no setting provides a consistently playable experience. Low averages 32 FPS, but the margin for error is thin, and Medium’s 24 FPS average with a 21 FPS minimum suggests frequent stutter. For anyone who must use 1440p, Low is the only option that stays above 30 FPS on average, but it will not maintain that during intense scenes. At 4K, all settings are below 20 FPS, so none are recommended — the game is effectively unplayable at that resolution with this hardware. The pragmatic recommendation based on the measured rows is to use 1080p Low for the best balance of frame rate and responsiveness, with 1080p Medium as a secondary choice if visual fidelity is prioritized over frame consistency.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. It operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, with 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GPU’s memory is system-shared, meaning it draws from the CPU’s LPDDR5X pool with bandwidth that is system dependent — in this case, the dual-channel 153.6 GB/s controller. The pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are modest figures, and the FP32 compute throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS places it in the entry-level segment.

For The Technomancer, the GPU’s role is decisive. The measured frame rates show that the Radeon 760M cannot handle the game’s rendering load at any resolution above 1080p Low. The GPU’s 16 ROPs are a particular bottleneck for fill-rate-heavy scenes, and the system-shared memory architecture means that the CPU and GPU compete for the same bandwidth. The GPU’s benchmark scores reflect its limitations: a Passmark G3D score of 5310 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 are both low, reinforcing the 35th percentile ranking. The nearest rivals — the RX 6400, GTX 770M, and Quadro P2000 — all score within 0.5% of the 760M, confirming that this is a baseline-level graphics solution. The data makes clear that while the Core Ultra X9 388H provides substantial CPU headroom, the Radeon 760M’s compute and memory limitations define the entire gaming experience in The Technomancer, capping performance at levels that are only marginally acceptable at the lowest settings and resolution.