Thief

The Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT pairing delivers a measured performance profile in Thief that is highly resolution-dependent. At 1080p the combo is capable of driving frame rates well above 100 FPS on Low settings, but that advantage collapses as pixel count climbs, exposing a system that is best suited to 1440p gaming rather than 4K. The data throughout this report comes directly from measured FPS for the given hardware, so every number below reflects actual benchmark runs rather than theoretical estimates.

Resolution Scaling

Thief's frame rate drops consistently when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160, with a similar percentage loss across all four presets. At Ultra, the average FPS falls from 84 at 1080p, to 60 at 2560x1440, to 34 at 3840x2160. That means the 1440p result is 60/84 = 71.4% of the 1080p figure, and the 4K result is only 34/84 = 40.5% of the 1080p figure. The same pattern appears at other presets: at High, 88 → 60 → 35; at Medium, 115 → 79 → 47; at Low, 152 → 104 → 61. In each case, 4K retains roughly 40% of the 1080p FPS, while 1440p retains roughly 68–71%. This near-constant retention ratio indicates a GPU-bound scenario when moving to higher resolutions; the CPU’s contribution becomes less important as the load shifts to the rasterizer and memory subsystem.

The only setting with measured min/max data is Medium. At 1080p Medium, the frame time ranges from 98 to 133 FPS (average 115). At 1440p Medium, the range is 67–91 (average 79). At 4K Medium, the range is 40–54 (average 47). This variation suggests that while the average scales predictably, instantaneous dips are more pronounced at 4K—the minimum frame on Medium at 4K (40 FPS) is slightly above the average at 4K Ultra (34 FPS), but still far off the smoothness of the 1080p runs.

A closer look at the Low preset shows the combo’s headroom: 152 FPS at 1080p, 104 FPS at 1440p, and 61 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low average of 61 FPS barely reaches the nominal 60 FPS threshold, meaning even lowering graphics at 4K cannot push past this level. This reinforces that the RX 5700 XT’s capability at 4K is limited regardless of settings.

The consistency of the scaling ratios confirms that the limiting component at 4K is the GPU, not the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the drop from 1440p to 4K would be smaller. Instead, the 40% retention of 1080p FPS across all presets points to a fill‑rate or memory‑bandwidth cap.

How This Combo Ranks

In the full set of benchmarked combos, this pairing sits at rank 2731 out of 3720. That places it in the lower two‑thirds of tested combos, with only 989 configurations scoring lower and 2730 scoring higher. This rank is a direct result of the GPU’s mid‑range standing combined with the CPU’s low core count. The i3‑12100F holds a 4‑core/8‑thread layout and a single‑thread score of 1674 in Cinebench R23, while the GPU’s average benchmark score is 16361, with a 59th percentile rank among all GPUs. Neither component pairs extremely well for high‑end gaming, but the combined result is playable at moderate settings.

Looked at individually, the CPU sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, meaning about 32% of CPUs are faster, and 68% are slower. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3‑12100F (our CPU) has a benchmark score of 13492 and a delta of 0% with the Core i3 12100F itself; the i5‑9500 scores 13452 and is 0.3% slower, while the Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594 and is 0.7% faster, and the i7‑1250U scores 13351 and is 1.1% slower. These small deltas mean the CPU is positioned in a narrow performance band. On the GPU side, the RX 5700 XT’s nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro 5600M (performance 0.1% slower) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (delivers 0.3% more performance). This rank of 2731/3720, when combined with the CPU and GPU percentiles, indicates the duo will struggle in this game at 4K, but at 1080p it is sufficient for 16 so.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 5700 XT is built on RDNA 1.0 and offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256‑bit bus with 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. It operates with a base clock of 1605 MHz, a game clock of 1755 MHz, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz. The G3D score is 116 (more inline with DirectX 11) but the full benchmark average 16361. In Thief, the GPU’s limit is apparent at 4K, where the average FPS at Ultra is 34, at High is 35, and at Medium is 47. These numbers encircle the 60‑frame barrier, confirming that the GPU is the primary bottleneck above 1440p. At 1440p, the GPU can hold near 60 FPS on High (60 avg) but drops to 57 on Ultra, meaning the extra graphical demand from Ultra. At 1080p, the same GPU gives 84 FPS on Ultra, which is smooth for most players. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1440p is also notable: 104 vs 57, a gap of 47 FPS, underscoring the GPU’s ability to respond to quality settings.

The 59th percentile of all GPUs tells us that this custom part gets roughly halfway across the performance spectrum. In this dataset, the rival GPUs are within a few tenths of a percent, which means the RX 5700 XT is not a standalone star, but it’s firmly mid‑range. The 448 GB/s bandwidth is enough for 8 GB of VRAM, but as resolution increases the bandwidth demand of Thief’s environments exceeds what the GPU can sustain, dragging frame counts below the display refresh rate of typical gaming monitors.

When the GPU is asked to render at 4K, the combination of pixel shaders and VRAM bandwidth becomes the hard ceiling. Even at Low settings, the GPU scores 61 FPS at 4K, which is just above 60. This suggests that even with minimal graphical features, memory transfers over the PCIe bus and to the VRAM become the next wall, not the shading power. For a game from 2014, this performance is probably what the 5700 XT’s architecture was designed for—good enough for 1440p, not for 4K.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS is 88, with no min/max data provided for High.

Q: Which resolution gives a consistent 60+ FPS across all settings?

A: 1080p. Every preset (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) averages 84 FPS or higher, with the lowest being Ultra at 84 FPS.

Q: How does 1440p Ultra compare to 1080p Ultra?

A: At 2560×1440 Ultra, the average FPS is 57, which is 27% lower than the 84 FPS at 1920×1080 Ultra.

Q: Is 4K playable with this combo?

A: Only at Low settings, where the average FPS reaches 61. At Medium, High, and Ultra, the average stays below 60 FPS (47, 35, and 34, respectively), and the minimum is not reported for those presets.

Q: Does the CPU become a limiting factor at any resolution?

A: At 1080p Low, the average FPS reaches 152, which is well above the GPU’s comfortable load and indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck at that point. The CPU’s performance percentile (68th) and the architecture are sufficient to keep up with the settings, but the GPU finishes the frame.

Q: What measured data supports the claim that the GPU is the limiter at 4K?

A: The near‑linear drop from 1080p to 4K (the same ~40% of 1080p FPS across all presets) aligns with a fill‑rate‑bound scenario typical of GPU limitation, while the CPU’s 4‑core/8‑thread design and boost clock of 4.30 GHz are not stressed in this game.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3‑12100F contributes a boost clock of 4.30 GHz and a base frequency of 3.30 GHz. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are fully recognized by Thief, but the game’s engine is from 2014 and does not heavily utilize modern core counts. The CPU’s single‑thread Cinebench R23 score is 1674, and multi‑core won 11860, indicating it can keep up with the GPU in low‑detail 1080p scenarios. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 152, which is more than the GPU can produce at that setting—likely the GPU’s pixel fill rate is already exceeding the CPU’s ability to provide frames. At 1440p and 4K, the CPU is not the bottleneck; the decoding of draw calls is easily handled, as the FPS drops are entirely explainable by the GPU's fill rate and memory load.

That said, the CPU can’t deliver its full glory at 4K. The i3‑12100F ranks in the 68th percentile of all CPUs and sits within 1.1% of its nearest rivals: the Core i5‑9500 (0.3% faster) and Core i7‑1250U (1.1% faster). Its L3 cache is 12 MB, which is sufficient for Thief’s level sizes, but the game’s mono‑threaded main loop will be fed by the 4.30 GHz boost. The measured FPS at 1440p Low (104) and Medium (79) already approach the ceilings of the CPU; the jump from 104 to 152 when lowering from 1440p to 10800p shows a high dependency on pixel, not on CPU commands.

In short, the CPU’s contribution is to keep frame rates from being the limiting factor at 1080p. The i3‑12100F provides a solid foundation for AMD’s mid‑range GPU, but as resolution rises, the CPU’s role fades and the GPU takes full control of the performance envelope.

Settings Recommendations

Based solely on the measured data, the ideal preset depends on the target resolution. For 1080p, the best experience is Ultra, as it delivers a smooth 84 FPS average with no compromise in frame time (no min/max data is given, but the average is high). For 1440p, High is the optimal choice as it exactly hits the 60 FPS average, while Ultra slips to 57 FPS which may cause minor stutter. At 4K, only Low can maintain an average of 99 FPS—still above 60, but with no headroom. Medium, High, and Ultra are all in the double digits, so they are not playable on this combo at 2160p.

When considering the min/max data that is available, Medium at 1440p has a minimum of 67 and maximum of 91, which provides a stable frame delivery. For competitive play on a 120 Hz panel, the CPU and GPU combo can’t reach 120 FPS at 1080p except on Low (152 FPS). However, for the majority of players, sticking to 1080p High or Ultra delivers the most visual quality without sacrificing smoothness.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS for each resolution and setting is listed below. Only the Medium preset includes min and max values; other presets do not report them in this metric.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min | Max |

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

| 3840×2160 | Low | 61 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Medium | 47 | 40 | 54 |

| 3840×2160 | High | 35 | – | – |

| 3840×2160 | Ultra | 34 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Low | 104 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Medium | 79 | 67 | 91 |

| 2560×1440 | High | 60 | – | – |

| 2560×1440 | Ultra | 57 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Low | 152 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Medium | 115 | 98 | 133 |

| 1920×1080 | High | 88 | – | – |

| 1920×1080 | Ultra | 84 | – | – |

The numbers confirm that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo; every setting from Low to Ultra stays above 80 FPS. 1440p sees a drop of about 40% from 1080p, with the Intel‑core‑powered duo producing 60 FPS at High and 57 at Ultra. 4K remains a feather’s distance from playability—only Low exceeds 60 FPS, and the rest fall into the 30–50 FPS range. The FPS table shows no data for min/max beyond Medium, so we can only judge stability from those generic ranges; the Medium setting gives a worst‑case margin of 40 FPS at 4K, which is barely playable but not smooth.