Thief

# Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i7-12700K sits in a tight cluster of processors with nearly identical average benchmark scores. Its average score of 35,287 is almost indistinguishable from the Intel Core i5-13600T, which scores 35,305 — a delta of just -0.1%. The Core i7-12700KF trails by a mere -0.2% at 35,365, while the Core i7-13700T posts 35,403 (-0.3%) and the Intel Core 5 213PE reaches 35,428 (-0.4%). These differences are well within run-to-run variance, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver essentially the same frame pacing in Thief. The 12700K's 12 cores and 20 threads, boosting to 5.00 GHz, place it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs tested — a strong but not elite position.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 shows a more surprising set of neighbors. Its average benchmark score of 23,172 puts it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, but its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249, -0.3%), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250, -0.3%), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, -0.4%), and AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23,276, -0.4%). The RTX 3080's architectural advantages — 8,704 shading units, 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus delivering 760.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 68 RT cores — do not translate into a benchmark gap over these rivals in aggregate scores. This suggests that in Thief, a game from 2014, the GPU's raw compute headroom may matter less than its driver efficiency and memory subsystem behavior. The RTX 3080's 29.77 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 465.1 GTexel/s texture rate are impressive on paper, but the nearest-rival data implies that other, less exotic cards can match its aggregate performance in this title's workload profile.

# CPU and GPU Roles

Thief presents an interesting case study in component scaling because the measured FPS data reveals how the balance shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the CPU has more room to stretch its legs. The jump from Low (194.4 FPS) to Medium (179.5 FPS) is modest — a 7.7% drop — but moving to High (143.8 FPS) costs 25.9% from Low, and Ultra (132.9 FPS) is 31.6% below Low. These are large absolute numbers, indicating that even the most demanding settings at 1080p leave both components with headroom. The 12700K's single-thread performance — a Geekbench single-core score of 2,308 and a Cinebench R23 single-core result of 1,850.5 — becomes the likely limiter at these high frame rates, as the GPU is rarely saturated.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low delivers 169.7 FPS, but Medium drops to 126.8 FPS (-25.3%), High to 98.5 FPS (-41.9%), and Ultra to 92.1 FPS (-45.7%). The larger percentage drops between Low and Medium/High suggest the GPU is starting to take on more of the workload. The RTX 3080's 10 GB memory buffer and 320-bit bus become more relevant as pixel count rises. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 6.5% (98.5 vs 92.1), hinting that Ultra's additional effects are less taxing than the jump from Medium to High.

At 3840x2160, the GPU dominates decisively. Medium (74.7 FPS) is 21.9% slower than Low (95.6 FPS), High (57 FPS) is 40.4% below Low, and Ultra (54.8 FPS) is 42.7% below Low. The difference between High and Ultra shrinks to 3.9%, showing that at 4K the rendering pipeline is bandwidth-limited rather than shader-limited. The RTX 3080's 760.3 GB/s memory bandwidth becomes the critical resource. The CPU's role diminishes at 4K; even the 12700K's strong multi-threaded scores — Cinebench R23 multi-core of 19,784 and Passmark multi-thread of 34,404 — cannot compensate for the GPU's pixel throughput ceiling.

# How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of Intel Core i7-12700K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 ranks 804th out of 3,720 tested combinations in Thief. That places it in the top 21.6% of all combos tested — a solidly above-average position, but not among the elite. Given that the CPU sits in the 84th percentile and the GPU in the 68th percentile, the combo's rank is slightly lower than the CPU percentile alone would suggest. This implies Thief's performance is weighted toward GPU capability more than CPU headroom at the resolutions tested.

The rank of 804 out of 3,720 means 2,916 other combinations performed better in this game. Considering the RTX 3080's nearest rivals on the GPU benchmark leaderboard include cards like the AMD Radeon RX 6600M and even the Radeon R9 M290X, the combo's mid-pack ranking makes sense — the GPU's aggregate score is good but not exceptional. The 12700K's excellent single-thread performance (Passmark single-thread score of 4,013) helps in CPU-bound scenarios, but Thief's 2014 engine appears to scale primarily with GPU throughput at higher resolutions. The combo's rank suggests that pairing a stronger GPU with this CPU would yield better results in Thief, while swapping the CPU would produce diminishing returns.

# The Verdict

The data clearly shows this PC can run Thief, but the experience varies dramatically by resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, every preset — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — clears the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra averages 132.9 FPS, more than double the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, all four presets also remain playable, with Ultra hitting 92.1 FPS. The only problematic resolution is 3840x2160, where High (57 FPS) and Ultra (54.8 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS line. At 4K, the verdict is conditional: Low (95.6 FPS) and Medium (74.7 FPS) are playable, but High and Ultra are not.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the data confirms that this system delivers that in most configurations. For 1080p and 1440p gaming, this is a capable machine for Thief with no compromises needed. At 4K, users must choose between Medium quality at 74.7 FPS or dropping to Low for 95.6 FPS. The 4K Ultra setting at 54.8 FPS is tantalizingly close to the threshold — just 5.2 FPS short — but it misses the mark. This is a clear case where the GPU's 10 GB memory capacity and bandwidth are adequate but not overwhelming for 4K Ultra in this title.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are consistently high. Low settings produce 194.4 FPS, Medium delivers 179.5 FPS, High reaches 143.8 FPS, and Ultra hits 132.9 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 61.5 FPS, showing that even the most demanding preset retains excellent playability. The step from Medium to High is the largest single drop at 35.7 FPS, suggesting that High enables effects that significantly increase rendering cost.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 169.7 FPS, Medium at 126.8 FPS, High at 98.5 FPS, and Ultra at 92.1 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread here is 77.6 FPS, wider than at 1080p by 16.1 FPS. The Medium-to-High drop of 28.3 FPS is again the largest step, reinforcing that High settings carry a substantial computational penalty. The High-to-Ultra gap narrows to just 6.4 FPS, indicating diminishing returns from the final preset tier.

At 3840x2160, the numbers are: Low at 95.6 FPS, Medium at 74.7 FPS, High at 57 FPS, and Ultra at 54.8 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread is 40.8 FPS. Notably, the Medium-to-High drop of 17.7 FPS pushes the average below the 60 FPS threshold, while the High-to-Ultra difference is only 2.2 FPS. This compression at the top end suggests that 4K Ultra and High are both hitting a similar bottleneck — likely memory bandwidth or pixel fill rate — rather than shader complexity.

# Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, delivering an average of 132.9 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available, and it maintains a comfortable 72.9 FPS margin above the playable threshold. No compromises are needed at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is again the best choice, averaging 92.1 FPS. The margin above 60 FPS is 32.1 FPS, still substantial. All four presets are playable here, but Ultra provides the maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. The data shows no reason to step down to High (98.5 FPS) unless the user prefers the extra 6.4 FPS over the visual upgrade.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. The most demanding playable preset is Medium, which averages 74.7 FPS. This is 14.7 FPS above the threshold. High and Ultra both fall short at 57 FPS and 54.8 FPS respectively. Users seeking 4K must accept Medium settings to maintain playability. The alternative is dropping to Low for 95.6 FPS, but Medium offers the best balance of quality and performance at this resolution. The 19.9 FPS gap between Medium and High is the decisive factor — it represents the cost of enabling whatever effects differentiate those two tiers.

# FAQ

Q: Can this system run Thief at 4K Ultra settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the measured average FPS is 54.8, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best playable setting at 4K is Medium, averaging 74.7 FPS.

Q: What is the highest playable preset at 2560x1440?

A: Ultra settings at 2560x1440 produce an average of 92.1 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. All four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i7-12700K has an average benchmark score of 35,287. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-13600T at 35,305 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i7-12700KF at 35,365 (-0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-13700T at 35,403 (-0.3%). All are within 0.4% of each other.

Q: Does the GPU have any direct performance equals in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080's average benchmark score is 23,172, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23,249 (-0.3%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23,273 (-0.4%). These are within 0.4% of the RTX 3080's aggregate score.

Q: What is the largest FPS drop between consecutive settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the step from Medium (179.5 FPS) to High (143.8 FPS) represents a drop of 35.7 FPS, which is the largest single-settings penalty across the resolution's preset ladder.

Q: Is the 4K High setting close to being playable?

A: At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 57, which is 3 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra setting at 4K averages 54.8 FPS, a 5.2 FPS shortfall. Both miss the playable mark, though High is closer.