Thief

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT in Thief records average frame rates from 61 FPS at 4K Ultra to 130 FPS at 1080p Low, a spread that becomes tighter as resolution drops. The combination sits in 1603rd place out of 3720 tested combos in this game, placing it in the more capable half of the database. The data shows a system where CPU strength is ample for a 2014-era title, while GPU throughput, though massive, does not scale perfectly to the demands of Ultra settings at high resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is a Zen 2 architecture chip on the socket AM4 platform, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost of 4.40 GHz. The die is 74 mm² and packs 3,800 million transistors. Each core gets its own 64 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2, while the shared L3 pool totals 32 MB. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4, with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. This chip uses 65 W of TDP, and it supports Gen 4 PCIe, with 24 CPU lanes. Its launch MSRP was $329.

The CPU benchmark numbers in the FACT PACK show a strong all-round performer. Cinebench R15 multicore lands at 2092 points, and the single-core run is 204. Geekbench reports 8899 multicore and 1593 single-core. PassMark yields 22458 in multithread testing and 2656 for single thread; the integer math score is 66308, floating point 39005, and data compression 296379. The Raid Boss metric of 99 in prime number searching is comparatively low, but the overall picture is of a chip that posts an average benchmark score of 34260. That places it at the 84th percentile of all CPUs tracked.

The nearest rivals in CPU benchmark space tell much the same story. The AMD AI 7 350 averages 34222 points, only 0.1% apart. The AMD EPYC 4244P hits 34220, also 0.1% delta. On the other side, Intel's Core i5-13450HX scores 34333, and the Intel Core i7-165H goes slightly lower at 34083, with a 0.2% and 0.5% delta respectively. So the 3700X sits in a very crowded performance tier.

For a game like Thief, first released in 2014, the 8-core/16-thread configuration is an overmatch for the era's typical 4/8-core engines. The 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is also more than enough for a title that rarely needs to stream large assets. The CPU is therefore unlikely to be the primary factor that limits frame rates in any of the measured configurations. The data backs this: frame rates scale almost fully with the graphics settings and resolution, suggesting that the processor extracts every frame the GPU allows.

GPU Role

On the GPU side the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT makes use of the Navi 31 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, built at 5 nm. It ships with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory (not 20GB – actually the FACT PACK says 20 GB, not 16). I have corrected: it holds 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s. The base clock is 1387 MHz and the boost reaches 2394 MHz; a game clock runs at 2025 MHz. The chip contains 5370 shading units, 336 texture units, and 192 raster output units. It also has 84 ray-tracing cores (the horizontal array is not activated in this test). Pixelrate of 459.6 GPixel/s and a texture fill of 804.4 GTexel/s underline its headroom. FP32 compute is claimed to reach 51.48 TFLOPS. The GPU draws 300 W from a 700 W suggested PSU and uses dual 8-pin power connectors.

GPU synthetic scores quantify that raw power. In PassMark G3D it scores 29009 points, closing the GPU compute at 16828. 3DMark Steel Nomad reports 5623, after Geekbench OpenCL gives 12756 and Vulkan 71068. Still, its percentile ranking against all other GPUs is only 55 in this dataset, and the average benchmark score comes to 13745. The nearest rival list steers this around: the AMD Radeon 660M with an average score 13812 and a delta of -0.5%; NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile on 13821, also -0.5%; AMD Radeon RX 570X on 13871, -0.9%; and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT on 13543, +1.5%. This grouping is unusual for a SKU of that class, and it may simply reflect the fact that these are average scores for each card's synthetic collection.

For Thief, the GPU is oversized by objective measure. The game is likely not CPU-bound, and to see the maximum frames of 130 FPS at any resolution, the GPU is clearly what carries the workload. The 20 GB framebuffer far exceeds the game's VRAM needs. In this title, the RX 7900 XT's raw fill rate remains significantly above the demands of the highest graphical gears, so any FPS gap is more about the game's own era's optimisation than the card lacking capability.

Resolution Scaling

From the measured rows, the effective frames drop predictably as pixel count increases. Look at the Low preset: at 1920×1080 the average is 130 FPS, at 2560×1440 it is115, and at 3840×2160 it rests at 96. That is a drop from 130 to 96 frames as the number, but more telling is the extent for High and Ultra. With High selected, the numbers are 107 FPS at 1080p, 94 at 1440p, and 64 at 4K. For Ultra, they are 105, 93, and 61.

The curve is clearly convex from 1440p to 4K, the Fullabs at UHD. In the Ultra preset the FPS decays 12 from 1080 to 1440, but then falls again by 32 when moving from 1440 to 4K – that agrees with the pixel density quarters, the GPU is what keeps the system deed. The Low settings flatten the curve: a 15-frame dip from 1080p Low to 1440p Low, and then a 19-frame dip from 1440p to 4Kp. So the GPU has fewer obstacles when low to handle.

The takeaway is that the system is not CPU-bound at 1440p or 4K; the loss is fully on the GPU. The medium preset also shows the pattern: 111 (1080p Medium – wait, the DATA says 118) – yes, Medium goes 1118 at 1080, 104 at 1440, and 84 at 4K. All in-all stable in difference, about fourteen to twenty frames. This tells us that the CPU side performance is uniform across resolutions and settings, reaffirming the CPU's role as a steady base.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination's placement is a concrete data point. The measured system lands at rank 1603 among the 3720 unique combos in the game's benchmark harness. That is a top-half home, as rank numbers lower than it correspond to better standing. To juxtapose, fewer than half of the other tested combinations beat it: with 3720 total, the position 1603 means 2117 combos are slower. So this system, while not the single-record holder, beats a majority of the tested configurations.

To give a more direct reading of the Combo rank: the combo's rank is 1603 of 3720. That is roughly rank 43 from 100? No, the rank in the middle would be around 1860. Just from the numbers, this combination is higher than the average (or more precisely, above the median). The Cool, what is a sensible confidence? The rank places it in the middle of the pack but presumably towards the higher end, as the 1603rd place is within the top half of the list. Interactions that are near the bottom are a majority. In plain language, for a game from 2014, an 8-core CPU from 2019 and a flagship GPU from 2022 must make up a decent duo, though it is not the ultimate combo.

Measured FPS Breakdown

#### 1920×1080

• Low: average 130 FPS (min, max not given)
• Medium: average 118 FPS, min 100, max 135
• High: average 107 FPS
• Ultra: average 105 FPS

The Medium and High both carry the game comfortably above the common 60 Hz marker, and even High, with its 107, leaves many headroom. Ultra does have 105, so the visual spread from Low to Ultra is 25 frames, a modest cost for the package.

#### 2560×1440

• Low:
• Medium: average 104 FPS, min 88, max 120
• High: average 94 FPS
• Ultra: average 93 FPS

At 1440p, all settings average in the 90-105 range. The lowest reported average is Ultra with 104, while the High is 94 and the Ultra is 93. The Medium average is 104 even better than the High and parsed, its min is 88. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is modest: 130 to 115 with Low, 118 to 104 with Medium, 107 to 94 in High, and 105 to 93 in Ultra.

#### 3840×2160

• Low: average 96 FPS
• Medium: average 84 FPS, min 71, max 96
• High: average 64 FPS
• Ultra: average 61 FPS

At 4K the battlefield is monitored. The High and Ultra presets fall into the 61-64 range, a drop of about 45% from 1080p Ultra. Medium is the only setting that clearly stays above 60, at 84 average, and also holds a minimum of 71 (min). The Low setting averages a meaningful 96, which is great for esports monitors but it comes with terrible visual quality. The min-only row for Medium (71) is a good indicator that play on 4K with Medium budget is consistent.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS that this combo produced in Thief's benchmark suite?

A: The data shows 130 average FPS at 1080p Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded at 4K with the Ultra preset?

A: 61 FPS – that is the Ultra setting at 3840×2160.

Q: What is the only resolution/setting pair that includes a measured minimum FPS?

A: At Medium quality for all three resolutions – the minimums are 100 (1080p), 88 (1440p), and 71 (4K).

Q: How does the CPU's memory configuration support the game?

A: The CPU has a dual-channel DDR4 controller with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, which falls around 8 of the system's capacity.

Q: Which of the listed GPU benchmarks shows the highest raw performance score?

A: In the data, Vulkan scoring gives 71068 in Geekbench.

Q: What is this combo's rank in the overall game benchmark?

A: It is ranked 1603 of 3720 combinations.

Settings Recommendations

The data points that four presets – Low, Medium, High, Ultra – exist for each standard resolution. The best choice depends on the target metric. At 1080p, every preset clears 60 FPS, and even Ultra gets 105, so a user can freely select Ultra for maximum visual fidelity and still have almost double the space. There is no reason to leave Medium except if the user wants to spare power. The data shows a clear difference of 105 vs 118 between Ultra and Medium, but both are smooth.

When moving to 1440p, the measurable spread narrows: the Ultra gives 93, High 94, and Medium 104 FPS. Here Medium is the sweet spot, offering a 10 FPS leap over High with no significant loss in average output. The Ultra preset still yields 93 for users who value sharper textures. The middle answer is Medium at 1440.

At 4K, the stakes rise. With High and Ultra fundamentally stuck near the 60/61 mark, any frame hitch can be problematic. The medium setup's 84 average and the 71 minimum is the only row with a reported minimum that stays above the traditional 60 marker. So, for 4K, the Medium preset is the right pick to keep a stable experience. For 1440p users, High or Ultra are also fine, but if they want to make sure the game never steps below 88 FPS, Medium's min at 88 makes it especially reliable. For 1080p, the Load is the highest average the data yields (130) – a useful option if the game is used in pure performance mode. In short, the recommendation aligned to the data: 1080p Ultra, 1440p Medium or High, 4K Medium.