Thief

# Thief Performance Analysis: Intel Core i5-14400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

The Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti places 1202nd out of 1642 tested combos in Thief, a position that reflects a mid-pack standing for a 2014 stealth title. This ranking, derived from measured data, indicates that while the combination delivers playable frame rates across most configurations, it sits well behind the top-performing systems in the database. The CPU, with a multi-core score of 21,914 in Cinebench R23 and an 88th percentile ranking among all processors, is a strong modern part, but the GPU's 69th percentile standing among all graphics cards suggests the graphics subsystem is the more limiting factor in this pairing.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's 1202nd rank out of 1,642 tested combinations places it in the lower third of the database, a somewhat surprising outcome given the hardware's individual credentials. The Core i5-14400F's 10 cores and 16 threads deliver a PassMark multithread score of 25,783, placing it within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645 and essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-12800H, which scores 32,513 versus the i5's 32,508 average. This near-parity with mobile and desktop rivals indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck in most scenarios.

The RTX 3060 Ti, meanwhile, produces a PassMark G3D score of 20,349, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 6700M at a 0.2% delta. The GPU's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is substantial for a card of this class. Yet in Thief, the combination only achieves a 73.3% completion rate relative to the top combo (calculated from the rank position), suggesting that the game's engine—released in 2014—may not fully utilize the modern hardware's capabilities, or that the specific driver overhead and API path chosen for this title penalize the combination.

Benchmark results indicate the CPU's single-thread performance, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2,333 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,093, provides adequate headroom for the game's logic, but the GPU's raw compute of 16.20 TFLOPS FP32 may be underutilized due to the title's age and rendering path.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable scaling pattern across resolutions, but with some notable inflection points. At 1080p, the combo achieves 153.3 FPS on Low settings, dropping to 93.2 FPS on High—a 39.2% reduction. Moving to 1440p, the Low setting yields 109 FPS, while High delivers 61.8 FPS, representing a 43.3% drop from Low to High at that resolution. At 4K, the Low setting produces 65.8 FPS, and High falls to 33.7 FPS, a 48.8% reduction.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K at High settings shows a drop from 93.2 FPS to 33.7 FPS, a 63.8% decrease. This is a larger relative drop than the pixel count increase (4x) would suggest if the system were purely pixel-bound, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth and fill rate become increasingly stressed at higher resolutions. The RTX 3060 Ti's pixel rate of 133.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 253.1 GTexel/s are substantial, but the 8 GB VRAM capacity may be approached at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS falls to 34.6.

At 1440p, the spread between Low (109 FPS) and Ultra (58.4 FPS) is 46.4%, while at 4K, the spread between Low (65.8 FPS) and Ultra (34.6 FPS) is 47.4%. This consistent gap across resolutions suggests the settings scaling is roughly uniform, but the absolute FPS at 4K Ultra falls below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component at this resolution. The data shows that at 1080p, even Ultra settings (83.6 FPS) remain playable, while 1440p Ultra (58.4 FPS) is borderline, and 4K Ultra (34.6 FPS) is only suitable for less demanding play.

GPU Role

The RTX 3060 Ti's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory operates at 14 Gbps effective, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit interface. In Thief, a game from 2014 with a relatively modest texture budget, this VRAM capacity is unlikely to be a hard limit at any tested setting. However, the card's 80 ROPs and 152 TMUs determine the fill-rate ceiling, and the measured FPS suggests these units are the limiting factor at 4K.

At 4K Ultra, the combo achieves 34.6 FPS, which is 77.5% of the 4K High result (33.7 FPS) — the Ultra setting actually performs slightly better than High, a statistical anomaly likely due to minor measurement variance. The GPU's boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1410 MHz are moderate for the Ampere architecture, and the 200 W TDP suggests the card is power-constrained at higher resolutions.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility mean the hardware is capable of modern rendering techniques, but Thief's engine was designed for older API paths. The PassMark DirectX 11 score of 163 versus DirectX 12 score of 78 indicates the card's performance varies significantly across API versions, and Thief's likely use of DirectX 11 or earlier paths may not fully exploit the card's strengths. The 16.20 TFLOPS FP32 compute is ample for this title, yet the 4K results show the card cannot maintain 60 FPS at any setting above Low, confirming that memory bandwidth and ROP throughput are the binding constraints.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings configuration for 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset delivers 61.8 FPS, which is the only setting above Low (109 FPS) that exceeds 60 FPS. Medium produces 79.6 FPS, while Ultra falls to 58.4 FPS, just below the threshold.

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset (65.8 FPS) is the only setting above 60 FPS, and it drops below 60 FPS at Medium (47.7 FPS), High (33.7 FPS), and Ultra (34.6 FPS).

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core i5-14400F's average benchmark score of 32,508 is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645 (32,446) and essentially tied with the Intel Core i7-12800H (32,513). It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 250 (32,584) by 0.2%.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 153.3 FPS, while Ultra yields 83.6 FPS — a 45.5% reduction. This gap is consistent with the settings scaling observed at 1440p and 4K.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more responsible for the 4K performance drop?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU maintains near-parity with rivals in synthetic benchmarks, while the GPU's 4K Ultra result of 34.6 FPS suggests fill-rate and bandwidth constraints, given the card's 80 ROPs and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the combo rank relative to all tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 1202nd out of 1,642 tested combos in Thief, placing it in the 26.8th percentile of all tested configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 153.3 FPS average
• Medium: 116.7 FPS average
• High: 93.2 FPS average
• Ultra: 83.6 FPS average

The 1080p results show a wide performance envelope, with Low settings nearly doubling the Ultra frame rate. The transition from Low to Medium (36.6 FPS drop) is the largest single-step reduction, while the step from High to Ultra (9.6 FPS drop) is the smallest. This suggests that the Medium preset introduces significant rendering features that are only marginally extended by the Ultra preset.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 109 FPS average
• Medium: 79.6 FPS average
• High: 61.8 FPS average
• Ultra: 58.4 FPS average

At 1440p, the scaling pattern shifts. The drop from Low to Medium (29.4 FPS) remains significant, but the High to Ultra step (3.4 FPS) is minimal, indicating that the Ultra preset adds little over High at this resolution. The 1440p High result of 61.8 FPS is just above the 60 FPS target, while Ultra falls below it.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 65.8 FPS average
• Medium: 47.7 FPS average
• High: 33.7 FPS average
• Ultra: 34.6 FPS average

The 4K results reveal a non-monotonic relationship between High and Ultra, with Ultra outperforming High by 0.9 FPS. This anomaly likely stems from measurement variance or driver-level optimization. The larger gap between Medium and High (14 FPS) versus Low and Medium (18.1 FPS) indicates that the High preset's additional effects are disproportionately costly at this resolution, while the Ultra preset's marginal additions do not meaningfully impact performance.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset provides the most consistent frame rates, with 1080p Low (153.3 FPS) being 2.3x faster than 4K Low (65.8 FPS). The data confirms that for 60 FPS gameplay, 1440p High is the maximum viable configuration, while 4K requires Low settings to stay above 60 FPS. The 8 GB VRAM capacity does not appear to be exceeded at any tested setting, as the performance degradation follows a smooth curve rather than a cliff, indicating that memory bandwidth and ROP throughput are the primary constraints at higher resolutions.