Thief

The measured data for _Thief_ on this combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti covers three resolutions and four presets, with a top average result of 192 FPS at 1080p Low and a low of 68 FPS at 4K Ultra. The combo sits at rank 373 out of 3,720 tested combos in the database, placing it in the top 10 percent of the field. The RTX 5070 Ti, which launched at 749 USD, is joined by a six-core Zen 4 CPU in a pairing that never falls below 68 FPS even at the highest preset and resolution. These frame rates come from measured rows, not simulated estimates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on Zen 4 (Raphael), with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It carries 32 MB of shared L3 cache and runs on the AM5 socket. Thief, released in 2014, is not an especially thread-hungry title, and the measured FPS shows that even at a 1080p Low preset the CPU delivers 192 frames per second, which is a strong indication that the CPU sits well above the game’s requirements at lower settings.

Look at the gaps across resolutions to see where the CPU still has headroom. At 1920x1080 Low, the frame rate is 192; at 2560x1440 Low it drops only 23 frames to 169; at 3840x2160 Low it lands at 124. That scaling from 192 to 124 across a 3.5x pixel increase is smaller than the scaling seen on higher presets, which are clearly GPU-limited. The the CPU side, the buffer is visible: the 1080p Ultra result of 155 FPS is still the best framerate achieved on any 4K row, meaning the chip can feed far more throughput than the GPU needs at lower resolutions. The CPU’s single-thread strength, shown by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1852 and Geekbench single of 2521, is for a title that primarily uses one or a few cores; this helps explain why even the lowest preset at 1080p does not break 200.

It is also worth noting a CPU percentile at 78th against all CPUs, while the GPU sits at an 86th percentile. The 7600’s average benchmark score is 26324, with nearest rivals such as the Intel Core i9-11900KF being just 0.4 percent away and the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS at -0.3 percent. The parity in these numbers tells us CPU choice in this league does not cause meaningful spread in overall marks, though in Thief the 6-core balance is clearly enough—the measured FPS never hits a bottleneck of 64, for example. The CPU operates within a TDP of 65 W, but that is a power figure, not a performance one; there is plenty of thermal headroom to run the boost all day.

FAQ

Q: How well does this pairing handle 1080p on Ultra settings in Thief?

A: 1920x1080 Ultra reaches an average of 155 FPS. That is exactly 2 FPS less than High (157), meaning the Ultra preset is essentially free at this resolution. The data does not record any min/max numbers for these presets, but the average is stable enough for even a high-refresh display.

Q: At 1440 resolution, which setting maintains a 100+ frame rate?

A: Three presets at 2560x1440 average above 100 FPS: Low at 169, Medium at 153, and High at 121. Only Ultra (121, wait—) is excluded because Ultra at 1440p averages 116 FPS. The Medium preset is the best fit for sustained 144 Hz performance, since it reports a min of 130 and a max of 176, which shows a frame time that stays above a typical 60 FPS floor.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS any row reaches?

A: The lowest value in the measured rows is 68 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 Ultra. So even on the heaviest setting at 4K, the combo stays above a 60 FPS threshold, though 4K Ultra leaves little headroom.

Q: How does the 4K scenario compare to 1080p?

A: In the Low preset, average FPS falls from 192 at 1080p to 124 at 4K, a drop of 68 FPS. In the Ultra preset, the average drops from 155 to 68, a 87 FPS loss. The Ultra preset’s larger loss shows that at the highest settings and 4 beads it is heavily GPU-bound.

Q: Standing of this combo

A: The DAC rank is 373 of 3,720 combos, so it outperforms roughly 10 in 10 combos in the database. That puts this pairing in the top 10 percent of all combos tested for Thief.

Settings Recommendations

The data rows give us enough to pick a preset for the target display. For typical 1080p gaming, the Low cursor hits 192 FPS and Medium 173 FPS, but the difference between High (157) and Ultra (155) is only two frames—so the Ultra preset is effectively free quality. I would run 1080p Ultra for the highest visual quality, since it loses only 2 FPS to High. If you want an answer above 90 with the strength of a min to a stable pl0, Medium 173 FPS with a min of 170 might.

At 1440p we get a spread of 116–169. The Ultra setting gives 116 FPS average and the Ultra is 0 below the 120, but the min/max data is not recorded for those, so we cannot verify frame pacing. The Medium preset, however, is recorded with a minimum of 130 and a maximum of 176, meaning a 153-FPS average that holds a 130 floor, which is a very good fit for a 144-Hz monitor. Use Medium at 1440p if you want smoothness beyond the 120 class.

For 4K, the characters change. The Low preset does 124 FPS, Medium does 94, High does 78, Ultra does 68. Since even the Ultra row stays above 60, you have freedom. Play in Medium for the best balance: 94 FPS with a recorded min of 80 and max of 108 shows no sustained drops. The Ultra row offers 71 FPS at High—no min/max available—but the extra 14 vs High 77? Actually High is 71 and Ultra 68, so the difference is tiny. At 4K, I would go with High rather than Ultra because the average difference is 3 FPS (71 vs 68), but for a more responsive frame, choose Medium and get 94.

So the recommendation set is: 1080p – Ultra (155 FPS); 1440p – Medium or High after you set frame cap; 4K – Medium for a strong 94 FPS or High if you toleron 71.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured combo list puts this pairing at rank 373 out of 3,120 total combos. That ranks it in the top 10.0 percent across the database. A rank 373 of 3,720 means 3320 other tested combos finish behind it – so only 372 combos beat it.

The GPU side sits at an all-time CPU percentile of 86, meaning it beats 86% of all GPUs in synthetic results. The CPU at the 78th percentile. These percentiles match the frame performance: the 8-thread 3Dmark shows a rise from 2,521 single to 5528, and the multi is strong at full load, but the game’s single-focused logic uses the boost clock of 5.10.

The nearest, based on average scores, include the RX 6800 and 6900 XT, both within 3.1%‑2% away. But the frame rates in this game are not just about those scores. The ranks reflect it places at line 373, which is more CPU than GPU stands.

A note: the low percent of the benchmark does not shrink the meaning of the combination – it is a true measured data row, not an estimate, so the 373rd rank is a real result from the game.

Resolution Scaling

The relationship between the resolution and each frame rate shows how the work distributes between CPU and GPU.

Take the Low preset. 1080p gives 192 FPS, 1440p gives 169, and 4K gives 124. Average drop from 1080p to 4K is 192/124, about 65%] of the original frame rate, meaning the resolution increase on Low costs only about 1/3 of the frames. That is a modest decline, and it suggests that at Low settings the GPU is not saturated – the part of the limit is the CPU or the game logic.

On the Ultra preset, the scaling is steeper. 1080p Ultra 151, 1440p Ultra 115, 4K Ultra 68 – so moving from 1080p to 4K cuts the frame rate from 155 to 68, a 56% drop. That tells that on Ultra all three factors become GPU-heavy.

The High preset behaves similarly: a drop from 157 (1080) to 121 (1440) to 71 (4K), which is a 53% loss from 1080 to 4K. The minimum values on the Medium rows, which are the only ones with recorded min/max, show that the frame time degrades as you load the GPU: 1080p Medium has a min of 147, 1440p min of 137, 4K min of 80. The max frames fall from 199 to 176 to 108. So while the average drops, the worst-case frame also falls, which is typical of a GPU that is scale-limited.

The conclusion from scaling: the Ryzen 5 7600 is enough to feed the GPU in 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K the RTX buffer becomes the bottleneck. For low, the CPU can top out 192-ish, but at 4K it is the GPU that dictates the max.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The exact measured rows appear below. All are from the same system, with no values missing except the null min/max rows.

1920 x 1080 (resolution rows)

Settings table:

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|--------|---------|---------|---------|

| Low | 192 | – | – |

| Medium | 173 | 147 | 199 |

| High | 157 | – | – |

| Ultra | 155 | – | – |

This set shows a smooth curve: Low 192, Medium 173, High 157, Ultra 155. The step from High to Ultra is only 2 frames, so the Ultra only possible as free. The Average difference between the two high presets is trivial for most monitors.

2560x1440

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|--------|--------|---------|---------|

| Low | 169 | – | – |

| Medium | 153 | 130 | 176 |

| High | 121 | – | – |

| Ultra | 116 | – | – |

At 1440p, the Low preset pushes 169. Medium to 153 keeps a floor of 130 frames. High 121 and Ultra 116 are near but still above 100. The recorded min/max for Medium is a valuable note: there is a 46-frame swing from 130 to 176, but the average is strong, best, it holds 130 at all frames.

3840x2160 (4K UHD)

| Preset | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|--------|--------|---------|---------|

| Low | 124 | – | – |

| Medium | 94 | 80 | 108 |

| High | 71 | – | – |

| Ultra | 68 | – | – |

The 4K rows show that Low remains over 120, Medium is still above 60, and both High and Ultra stay only just above 60 (61 − 68). Medium gives a min of 80 and a max of 108, which is the positional of the 4K Medium as the