Thief

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and AMD Radeon RX 7700 pairing delivers a solid 1080p and 1440p experience in Thief, with the data showing that the GPU is the primary driver of performance at higher resolutions. At 4K, the combination struggles to maintain high refresh rates on the Ultra preset, but remains playable on lower settings. This analysis breaks down the measured frame rates, the role of the CPU, and how this specific combo ranks against the wider field of tested hardware.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. It belongs to the 2000 series and features a shared 16 MB L3 cache. The data shows that its average benchmark score is 21484, placing it in the 75th percentile of all CPUs. This is a mid-range processor from 2018, and its performance characteristics are well understood.

In the context of Thief, a stealth game released in 2014, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The Ryzen 5 2600's 12 threads are more than sufficient for a title of this era, which is typically not heavily multi-threaded. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this pairing. Looking at the nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 2600 scores nearly identically to the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, with a deltaPct of 0.2%, and is only 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900H. This suggests that in synthetic tests, the CPU’s performance is consistent with other mainstream options.

However, its single-threaded performance is more modest. The Geekbench single-core score is 1154, and the Cinebench R15 single-core score is 157.3. While these are lower than modern flagships, Thief's engine (released in 2014) does not require extreme single-core performance to achieve high frame rates. The measured FPS data supports this interpretation: at 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches 110 FPS average, and even at 4K with Low settings, it achieves 79 FPS. These numbers suggest that the CPU is capable of keeping up with the RX 7700 across the tested settings.

The CPU's memory bandwidth is 46.9 GB/s, which is standard for DDR4 dual-channel. This is sufficient for the game's data streaming requirements. The 6-core/12-thread configuration provides headroom for background tasks while gaming, but the data does not show any scenario where the CPU bottleneck is evident. The bottleneck shifts to the GPU as resolution and settings increase, which is a typical pattern. The Ryzen 5 2600's performance in the Passmark multithread test (13160) and physics test (673) further confirms its capability for this workload.

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

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 110, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the maximum measured value across all resolutions and settings in the data.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K with the Medium preset?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the combo averages 60 FPS, with a minimum FPS of 51 and a maximum of 69. This indicates a playable, though not perfectly smooth, experience at 4K.

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

A: The data shows that as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, the average FPS drops significantly at the same settings. For example, on High settings, FPS drops from 90 at 1080p to 46 at 4K. This suggests the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 97 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 74 FPS. This represents a 31% increase in average FPS when switching from Ultra to Low.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1907 out of 2851 total tested combinations for Thief. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the performance spectrum for this specific game.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 2600 outperform the Intel Core i9-11900H in synthetic benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 5 2600 has an average benchmark score of 21484, which is 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i9-11900H's score of 21367. The deltaPct is 0.5, indicating the Ryzen is slightly ahead.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how resolution scaling affects performance. The pattern is consistent across all settings: performance degrades as the resolution increases, but the rate of degradation is more pronounced at higher settings. This is classic GPU-bound behavior.

At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 110 at 1920x1080 to 97 at 2560x1440, and then to 79 at 3840x2160. That is a 29% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The frame rate remains relatively high even at 4K, indicating that the RX 7700 has significant headroom when the graphical load is light.

The Medium preset shows a similar trend: 99 FPS at 1080p, 88 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is particularly steep (32%), which is expected as the number of pixels more than doubles. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 51, which is still above the threshold for playability, though it may result in noticeable stutters.

On the High preset, the averages are 90 FPS at 1080p, 77 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. The 4K result is the first one that dips below the 60 FPS mark on average. This suggests that 4K High is starting to push the GPU to its limits.

The Ultra preset follows the same pattern: 88 FPS at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p, and 43 FPS at 4K. The 1080p Ultra result (88 FPS) is only slightly lower than the 1080p High result (90 FPS), which indicates that the CPU is not a bottleneck at this resolution. The 4K Ultra result (43 FPS) is the lowest in the entire dataset, confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor.

The data shows that the CPU's influence is minimal. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would see a smaller FPS drop when increasing resolution at the same settings. Instead, the FPS drops consistently, indicating that the GPU's rendering workload is the primary constraint. The Ryzen 5 2600 is adequately feeding the GPU, but the RX 7700 cannot maintain high frame rates at 4K with the most demanding settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 + AMD Radeon RX 7700 combination ranks 1907 out of 2851 tested combos in Thief. This places it in the 67th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it performs better than about two-thirds of the combinations in the database. While this is not a top-tier ranking, it is a respectable position for a mid-range CPU paired with a newer GPU.

The ranking is a composite measure of the system's overall performance in this specific game. Given that the data shows the GPU is the limiting factor, the rank is likely influenced more by the RX 7700's capabilities than the Ryzen 5 2600's. The GPU itself ranks in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15852. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 370X, which has a deltaPct of -0.1%, meaning the RX 7700 is essentially tied with it in synthetic GPU benchmarks.

The combo's rank of 1907 suggests that while it can handle Thief competently, there are many faster systems in the database. The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V (deltaPct 0.2%) and the Intel Xeon D-1746TER (deltaPct -0.7%). These are all relatively close in performance, indicating that the Ryzen 5 2600 is not a significant outlier in either direction.

In practical terms, a rank of 1907 means the combo will deliver smooth performance at 1080p and 1440p, but will require settings adjustments at 4K to maintain playable frame rates. The data shows that the Ultra preset at 4K produces an average of 43 FPS, which is below the ideal threshold for a smooth experience. This ranking is not a reflection of poor hardware, but rather the reality of pairing a 2018 CPU with a 2025 GPU in a game that is now over a decade old.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend entirely on the target resolution and the user's tolerance for frame rate fluctuations. The data provides a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and performance.

At 1920x1080, the High preset is the recommended choice. It delivers an average FPS of 90, which is smooth and responsive. The Ultra preset only improves the average to 88 FPS, which is actually slightly lower, suggesting diminishing returns or measurement variance. The Low preset offers 110 FPS, but the visual quality loss is significant for a game like Thief where lighting and shadow play a crucial role. Medium sits at 99 FPS, but High provides a better balance of visuals and performance.

At 2560x1440, the High preset remains the best option. It averages 77 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset averages 88 FPS, but the step up to High is worth the 11 FPS sacrifice for improved textures and effects. The Ultra preset averages 74 FPS, which is only 3 FPS lower than High. This makes Ultra a viable option for users with high refresh rate monitors, as the visual upgrade is noticeable. The Low preset at 97 FPS is not recommended unless the user prioritizes maximum frame rate over all else.

At 3840x2160, the Medium preset is the clear winner. It is the only setting that maintains an average FPS of 60, with a minimum of 51. This provides a playable 4K experience. The High preset drops to 46 FPS, which is likely to feel choppy. The Ultra preset averages 43 FPS, which is not recommended for a smooth experience. The Low preset averages 79 FPS, but the visual compromise is severe at 4K. For the best balance of image quality and performance at 4K, Medium is the only sensible choice.

In summary, the data suggests that 1080p and 1440p users should stick with High or Ultra settings, while 4K users should dial down to Medium to maintain a consistent 60 FPS. The Ryzen 5 2600 is not holding back the system at these settings, as the FPS differences are driven by the GPU's rendering load.

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

This section presents the exact measured FPS values for every combination of resolution and settings in the dataset.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: Average FPS 110. This is the highest FPS recorded at any resolution.
• Medium: Average FPS 99, with a minimum of 84 and a maximum of 114.
• High: Average FPS 90.
• Ultra: Average FPS 88.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: Average FPS 97.
• Medium: Average FPS 88, with a minimum of 74 and a maximum of 101.
• High: Average FPS 77.
• Ultra: Average FPS 74.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average FPS 79.
• Medium: Average FPS 60, with a minimum of 51 and a maximum of 69.
• High: Average FPS 46.
• Ultra: Average FPS 43.

The data shows that the Medium preset consistently provides a measurable minimum FPS, which is useful for understanding frame pacing. At 1080p and 1440p, the minimum FPS is 84 and 74, respectively, which indicates stable performance. At 4K, the minimum FPS of 51 on Medium is the lowest recorded minimum, but it remains above 50 FPS, which is acceptable for a slow-paced stealth game.

The delta between the Low and Ultra presets at each resolution is telling. At 1080p, the difference is 22 FPS (110 vs 88). At 1440p, the difference is 23 FPS (97 vs 74). At 4K, the difference is 36 FPS (79 vs 43). The increasing delta at higher resolutions reinforces the conclusion that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the cost of Ultra settings scales more steeply with pixel count.