Thief

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 2 (Matisse) architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts up to 4.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 32 MB L3 pool. In synthetic benchmarks, this processor posts a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2092 and a single-core score of 204, alongside a Geekbench multi-core score of 8899 and a single-core score of 1593. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 22458, with a single-thread score of 2656.

For Thief, a stealth title from 2014, the CPU's role is primarily to feed the GPU with draw calls and manage game logic. The 3700X's 8 cores and 16 threads are far beyond what this era of game typically demands; even at the time of Thief's release, quad-core processors were the mainstream standard. Benchmark results show that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 86 FPS, which is the highest measured figure in the entire dataset. This suggests the CPU is not a limiting factor at lower resolutions; rather, the frame rate ceiling at 1080p Low is constrained by the GPU's raw throughput, not by the processor's ability to issue rendering commands.

The CPU's percentile ranking against all processors sits at 84, meaning it outperforms the majority of CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0.1% higher), AMD EPYC 4244P (0.1% higher), Intel Core i5-13450HX (0.2% lower), and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (0.5% higher). These deltas are negligible—under a percentage point in either direction—so the 3700X sits firmly in a performance tier where CPU-bound scenarios are unlikely to show meaningful differences between these chips. For Thief specifically, the data indicates that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck across nearly all tested settings, as evidenced by the sharp FPS drops when moving from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K.

The processor's memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR4, which was sufficient for this game's era. The CPU supports PCIe Gen 4 with 24 lanes, providing ample bandwidth for the integrated Intel Arc B390 GPU, which connects via the IGP bus interface. The 3700X's 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die underscore its efficiency, but for Thief, the practical takeaway is that the CPU provides more than enough headroom; the measured frame rates are dictated by the GPU's pixel and texture processing capabilities.

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

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Thief, and at which settings?

A: The highest average FPS is 86, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next best is 66 FPS at 1080p Medium, followed by 59 FPS at 1440p Low.

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

A: The Ryzen 7 3700X has an average benchmark score of 34260. It trails the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 by 0.1% and the AMD EPYC 4244P by 0.1%, while leading the Intel Core i5-13450HX by 0.2% and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H by 0.5%. These differences are all within a single percentage point.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in Thief at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 19 FPS, while at 4K Low it averages 35 FPS. The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores (2092 in Cinebench R15 multi-core) suggest it is not the bottleneck; the Intel Arc B390's low percentile ranking (9th percentile) and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 indicate a weak GPU relative to the CPU.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested hardware combinations for Thief?

A: The combo ranks 2534 out of 2851 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 11% of all combos for this game. This low rank is driven by the GPU's limited performance rather than the CPU.

Q: Does increasing settings from Low to Ultra have a consistent impact on FPS across resolutions?

A: Yes, the pattern is consistent. At 1080p, average FPS drops from 86 on Low to 66 on Medium, 50 on High, and 48 on Ultra. At 1440p, the drop is from 59 on Low to 45 on Medium, 34 on High, and 33 on Ultra. At 4K, the drop is from 35 on Low to 26 on Medium, 20 on High, and 19 on Ultra. The relative penalty of Ultra over Low is roughly 44% at 1080p, 44% at 1440p, and 46% at 4K.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU, and how does its production status affect availability?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X had a launch MSRP of $329. Its production status is listed as "Active," meaning it remains in production. The GPU, Intel Arc B390, has no launch MSRP listed and is also marked as "Active" in production.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance penalty as resolution increases, which is a classic signature of a GPU-bound workload. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 86 at 1920x1080 to 59 at 2560x1440—a 31% reduction—and then further to 35 at 3840x2160, which is 59% lower than the 1080p figure. At Medium settings, the progression is 66 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p (down 32%), and 26 FPS at 4K (down 61%). High settings show 50 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p (down 32%), and 20 FPS at 4K (down 60%). Ultra settings yield 48 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p (down 31%), and 19 FPS at 4K (down 60%).

The consistency of these percentage drops—hovering around 31-32% from 1080p to 1440p and 59-61% from 1080p to 4K—indicates that the frame rate scales almost linearly with the number of pixels being rendered. This is expected when the GPU is the primary bottleneck: doubling the pixel count (from 1080p to 4K is roughly 4x the pixels) should theoretically quarter the frame rate if the GPU is fully saturated. The observed 60% drop is less severe than the theoretical 75%, suggesting that there is some slack in the GPU pipeline that partially absorbs the additional pixel load, but the trend is unmistakably GPU-limited.

The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal. The Ryzen 7 3700X's high multi-threaded performance (PassMark multi-thread score of 22458) and its 84th percentile ranking among all CPUs mean that it can easily handle the increased draw call and physics load at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across resolutions, or at least a plateau where the CPU's maximum frame rate is reached regardless of resolution. Instead, the FPS drops consistently, confirming that the Intel Arc B390—with its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 24 ROPs—is the component that dictates the frame rate ceiling.

Notably, the gap between High and Ultra settings is very small at every resolution. At 1080p, High averages 50 FPS while Ultra averages 48 FPS—a mere 4% difference. At 1440p, the difference is 34 vs 33 FPS (3%). At 4K, it's 20 vs 19 FPS (5%). This suggests that Ultra settings impose only a marginal additional load on the GPU compared to High, likely because the game's Ultra preset adds effects that are not heavily pixel-bound. The larger jumps occur between Low and Medium, where the FPS drops by about 23-26% at each resolution, indicating that Medium introduces significant shader or texture work that taxes the GPU's 48 TMUs and 1536 shading units.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2534 out of 2851 tested combinations in Thief. This places the combo in the bottom 11% of all configurations, which is a poor showing for a processor that is otherwise in the top 16% of all CPUs (84th percentile). The disparity between the CPU's strong synthetic scores and the combo's low game-specific rank highlights the GPU as the clear weak link.

The Intel Arc B390's own benchmark data reinforces this conclusion. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all low-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% higher score), GeForce 800M (1.5% higher), GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% higher), and GeForce GT 710 (2.7% higher). These are entry-level GPUs from previous generations, and the B390 sits right alongside them in raw compute capability. The GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for a demanding title like Thief at higher resolutions, even with the 3700X feeding it a steady stream of data.

Given the combo's rank, it is clear that this configuration is not intended for high-refresh-rate gaming at 1440p or 4K. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (19 FPS) is below playable thresholds, and even at 1080p Ultra (48 FPS) it barely reaches console-like frame rates. The rank of 2534 out of 2851 means that 89% of tested combos perform better in this game, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's low percentile standing. The CPU's contribution to the combo's rank is negligible; if the same GPU were paired with a weaker CPU, the rank would likely be similar, since the GPU is the constraint.

For context, the CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks—the Ryzen AI 7 350, EPYC 4244P, Core i5-13450HX, and Core Ultra 7 165H—all have average scores within 0.5% of the 3700X. Had any of these been paired with the Arc B390, the in-game results would likely be nearly identical, because the GPU's performance ceiling is far below what any of these CPUs can deliver. The data suggests that for Thief, the combo's rank is determined almost entirely by the GPU, and the 3700X is effectively overqualified for this pairing.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the recommended settings depend on the target resolution, but the overall guidance is to prioritize Low or Medium presets to achieve playable frame rates. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 86 FPS average, which is the only setting that approaches high-refresh-rate territory (above 75 FPS). Medium drops to 66 FPS, still playable, while High (50 FPS) and Ultra (48 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for smooth gameplay. For a 60 Hz display, Medium at 1080p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with 66 FPS providing a small headroom buffer. For a 144 Hz display, Low is the only viable option, as it's the sole preset that exceeds 100 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. Low averages 59 FPS, which is just under 60 FPS and may be acceptable for a 60 Hz monitor, but any higher preset drops below 45 FPS. Medium (45 FPS) and High (34 FPS) and Ultra (33 FPS) are all below the 60 FPS mark, meaning they will exhibit noticeable stutter on standard refresh displays. The recommendation here is to use Low if you must play at 1440p, accepting the visual compromise for a near-60 FPS experience. Alternatively, dropping to 1080p and using Medium or High will yield a smoother experience with better visual fidelity.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets achieve a playable frame rate. Low averages 35 FPS, Medium 26 FPS, High 20 FPS, and Ultra 19 FPS. These numbers are all below 30 FPS except for Low, which barely reaches 35 FPS. For 4K gaming, the data indicates that this combo is not suitable, and users should either lower the resolution to 1440p or accept sub-30 FPS performance. The Medium preset at 4K does have a recorded min FPS of 22 and max of 30, suggesting some variability, but the average of 26 FPS is still too low for a smooth experience.

The best overall experience, considering the measured rows, is 1080p Medium at 66 FPS. This preset provides a 30% improvement over High (50 FPS) while only requiring a modest reduction in visual effects compared to Ultra (48 FPS). The delta between Medium and High at 1080p is 16 FPS, which is substantial, while the delta between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS. This suggests that the game's High preset offers diminishing returns over Medium, making Medium the sweet spot for this hardware combination. If visual fidelity is paramount and a 48-50 FPS frame rate is acceptable, then High or Ultra at 1080p are the choices, but they will not feel as responsive as Medium.

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

The following table summarizes all measured average FPS values from the dataset, organized by resolution and settings preset.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 86 FPS average
• Medium: 66 FPS average (min 56, max 75)
• High: 50 FPS average
• Ultra: 48 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 59 FPS average
• Medium: 45 FPS average (min 38, max 52)
• High: 34 FPS average
• Ultra: 33 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 35 FPS average
• Medium: 26 FPS average (min 22, max 30)
• High: 20 FPS average
• Ultra: 19 FPS average

The data shows a clear and consistent pattern. At each resolution, the FPS drops from Low to Medium by approximately 23-26%, then from Medium to High by another 24-32%, and finally from High to Ultra by a marginal 4-5%. The most significant performance cost comes from moving from Low to Medium, which likely enables additional texture filtering and shadow details. The step from High to Ultra is nearly free in performance terms, costing only 2 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 1 FPS at 4K, making Ultra a reasonable choice if High is already playable.

The min and max FPS data is only available for the Medium preset across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the range is 56 to 75 FPS, indicating a 19 FPS variance. At 1440p Medium, the range is 38 to 52 FPS, a 14 FPS variance. At 4K Medium, the range is 22 to 30 FPS, an 8 FPS variance. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently saturated as pixel count increases, reducing frame time spikes. At 1080p, the CPU may occasionally deliver frames faster than the GPU can process them, causing wider swings, whereas at 4K, the GPU is uniformly the bottleneck.

For the Low, High, and Ultra presets, only average FPS is provided, with no min or max values. This limits the analysis of frame pacing, but the averages alone are sufficient to draw conclusions about playability. The 86 FPS at 1080p Low is the standout figure, offering a smooth experience on 60 Hz and 75 Hz displays, and being borderline for 144 Hz. The 59 FPS at 1440p Low is the only other preset that approaches 60 FPS, and it would be acceptable for a 60 Hz monitor with slight tearing. All other configurations fall below 50 FPS, which is the threshold below which many players notice judder in fast-paced scenes—though Thief's stealth gameplay is less demanding on frame rate than competitive shooters.

In summary, the measured FPS breakdown confirms that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming at Low or Medium settings, with 1440p being a stretch at Low, and 4K being effectively unplayable at any preset. The GPU's 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 120.0 GTexel/s texture rate are the limiting factors, as the CPU's 84th percentile standing ensures it is never the bottleneck. For a game like Thief, which was released when 1080p was the standard resolution, this hardware pairing can deliver a playable experience only if the user is willing to compromise on visual quality.