Thief

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Thief with this combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B370 shows a clear performance ceiling imposed by the graphics side. At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low across all settings. The High preset averages 18 FPS, while Low improves to 31 FPS. Medium lands at 24 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27, and Ultra drops to 17 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even the least demanding preset remains far below it.

Stepping down to 2560x1440, the picture improves but remains constrained. High averages 31 FPS, Low reaches 53 FPS, Medium sits at 41 FPS with a 35 to 47 range, and Ultra produces 29 FPS. The jump from 4K to 1440p yields roughly a 70% improvement in average FPS for the Low preset, but the overall pattern persists: every setting falls short of 60 FPS. The Medium preset shows a narrower spread between minimum and maximum, suggesting some frame pacing consistency, but the absolute numbers are still not playable by the 60 FPS standard.

At 1920x1080, the data becomes more nuanced. High averages 45 FPS, Low reaches 78 FPS, Medium averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 68, and Ultra produces 43 FPS. This is the only resolution where any preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, and it does so decisively with Low at 78 FPS. Medium sits just one FPS below 60, which means it is borderline but technically not playable per the database's strict cut-off. The difference between Low and High at 1080p is 33 FPS, a substantial gap that underscores how sensitive this game is to settings at this resolution.

Interestingly, the min and max values are only recorded for Medium presets across all resolutions. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27, at 2560x1440 Medium it is 35 to 47, and at 1920x1080 Medium it is 50 to 68. This suggests that the Medium preset experiences the most consistent frame delivery relative to its average, while other presets may have wider fluctuations that the database did not capture.

CPU and GPU Roles

This game's performance profile is dominated by the GPU at every resolution tested, but the degree of dominance shifts as resolution changes. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution with a 25 W TDP, and its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is modest compared to discrete alternatives. The CPU, by contrast, is a high-end desktop part with 24 cores and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested. When a CPU this strong is paired with a GPU this weak, the bottleneck is almost exclusively on the graphics side.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this. From 1080p Low at 78 FPS to 1440p Low at 53 FPS, the drop is 32%. From 1440p Low to 4K Low at 31 FPS, the drop is another 42%. This steep degradation with increasing pixel count is typical of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU has ample headroom to feed frames, but the Arc B370 cannot render them fast enough as resolution climbs. At 1080p, the CPU can push the GPU harder, which explains why Low reaches 78 FPS. At 4K, the pixel fill rate demand overwhelms the GPU, and even the least demanding preset cannot exceed 31 FPS.

The settings scaling further illustrates the GPU's role. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS, from Medium to High costs 14 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS. This non-linear relationship suggests that the GPU is hitting a compute limit at higher presets, where additional shading work yields diminishing returns. At 1440p, the pattern is similar: Low to Medium drops 12 FPS, Medium to High drops 10 FPS, and High to Ultra drops 2 FPS. At 4K, the differences compress further: Low to Medium drops 7 FPS, Medium to High drops 6 FPS, and High to Ultra drops only 1 FPS. The shrinking delta between presets at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is saturated regardless of settings, making resolution the primary lever.

The CPU's performance metrics reinforce that it is not the limiting factor. In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 51,731 in multi-core and 7,303 in single-core, both far above what Thief requires. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,823 and multithread score of 60,860 are likewise strong. The database's percentile ranking of 96 for all CPUs confirms that this processor is among the fastest available. For a 2014 stealth title like Thief, which was designed for hardware of that era, the CPU's raw power is irrelevant to the frame rate here; the GPU is the sole constraint.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the recorded data shows no playable settings. The highest average FPS achieved is 31 with Low, but that remains 29 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall between 17 and 24 FPS. The verdict for this resolution is clear: the game cannot be played at a smooth 60 FPS at any preset, so no best setting can be recommended.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar but slightly less dire. Low reaches 53 FPS, which is the closest any preset comes to playability, but it still falls 7 FPS short. Medium averages 41 FPS, High 31 FPS, and Ultra 29 FPS. None of these meet the database's playable threshold, and the verdict confirms that no settings are viable at this resolution. The 53 FPS Low result is tantalizingly close, but it does not cross the line.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only playable option, delivering 78 FPS. This exceeds the 60 FPS threshold by 18 FPS, providing a comfortable margin. Medium averages 59 FPS, which is one frame below the threshold, making it technically not playable despite being visually close. High and Ultra at 45 and 43 FPS respectively are well below the mark. The best settings for this resolution are therefore Low, and the recorded average FPS at those settings is 78. This is the only resolution where the game is playable by the database's standard.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow band of performance. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83,807 on average, which is 0.2% lower than the 290K Plus's 84,003. The AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83,090, a 1.1% deficit, and the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82,980, a 1.2% deficit. The AMD EPYC 7F72 actually scores higher at 85,072, which is 1.3% above the 290K Plus. These deltas are all within 1.3 percentage points, meaning that swapping to any of these CPUs would produce virtually identical behavior in Thief, since the CPU is not the bottleneck. For practical purposes, any of these processors would yield the same measured FPS values recorded above.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are dramatically different in character. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1,186 on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, 0.2% below the Arc B370's 1,184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190, 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1,168, 1.4% lower. These are all older, low-end graphics parts, and their performance deltas are so small that they would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in Thief. The Arc B370's percentile ranking of 5 among all GPUs confirms it sits at the very bottom of the performance spectrum, alongside these legacy mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

The Verdict

The database's verdict is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Thief at 60 FPS at 3840x2160 or 2560x1440, regardless of settings. At 4K, even Low averages 31 FPS, and at 1440p, Low averages 53 FPS. Both resolutions have no playable settings recorded. The only resolution where the game clears the threshold is 1920x1080, and only on the Low preset, which achieves 78 FPS. Medium at 59 FPS is one frame short, and High and Ultra are far behind at 45 and 43 FPS.

This means that a user would need to accept significant visual compromises to play this game smoothly. At 1080p Low, the game runs at 78 FPS, which is playable, but the visual quality would be reduced compared to higher presets. Alternatively, at 1080p Medium, the game runs at 59 FPS, which is close enough that a user might tolerate the slight dip below 60, but the database's strict threshold does not classify it as playable. At higher resolutions, the game is simply not viable for 60 FPS gameplay. The combination of a top-tier CPU and an entry-level integrated GPU creates a severe imbalance that limits this system to 1080p Low for Thief.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's overall ranking for Thief, this combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3,433 out of 3,720 tested combos. That places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, which aligns with the measured FPS data. The GPU's performance percentile of 5 is the primary driver of this low ranking, as the CPU's percentile of 96 is among the highest. This disparity creates a system that is enormously CPU-heavy but GPU-light, and for a graphics-intensive title like Thief, the weak GPU dominates the outcome.

The ranking implies that most other combinations of CPU and GPU would perform better in this game. Only 287 combos rank below this one, meaning that the overwhelming majority of tested systems achieve higher frame rates. This is not surprising given that the Arc B370 is an integrated solution, but it is notably the CPU's strength does nothing to boost the ranking. The database's measurements show that the CPU cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations in this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this PC can achieve in Thief at 1080p?

A: The highest recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 is 78, achieved with the Low preset. Medium reaches 59 FPS, High 45 FPS, and Ultra 43 FPS.

Q: Can this PC run Thief at 60 FPS at 2560x1440?

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at 2560x1440. The best result is Low at 53 FPS, which is 7 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in the database?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1,184 on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its closest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1,186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192 (0.7% higher).

Q: What is the performance difference between the 290K Plus and the Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, while the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83,807. The 285K is 0.2% slower, which is a negligible difference for gaming performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Thief for this PC?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions. The CPU ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The FPS scaling between resolutions and presets is consistent with GPU-limited performance.

Q: What is the lowest resolution and settings combination that is playable?

A: The only playable combination is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which achieves 78 FPS. Medium at 59 FPS does not meet the 60 FPS threshold, and no settings at 2560x1440 or 3840x2160 are playable.