Thief

The Intel Core i7-12700K and AMD Radeon RX 7600 pairing in Thief delivers a dataset that spans three resolutions and four quality presets, with all frame figures taken from actual measurements. The CPU lists a 84th percentile standing across all tested processors, while the GPU sits at the 57th percentile; combined they place this configuration 2561st among 3720 combos in this specific title.

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

The measured FPS rows cover 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 across Low, Medium (which also carries min/max fields), High, and Ultra. Starting at the fastest preset, the lowest workload: at 1920x1080 Low the average frame rate is 156 FPS, while Medium yields a 118 average (with a min of 101 and a max of 136). The High preset lists an average of 90, and Ultra still manages 86. That progression shows that even on a decade-old title, the RX 7600 is not limited by the CPU at this resolution — the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is substantial when reading the raw numbers.

Moving to 2560x1440, the entire scene shifts. Low gets 107 FPS, Medium drops to a 81 average and a 69 min to 93 max range, High settles at 62, and Ultra at 59. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is about 48 FPS if you subtract, but the exact figures themselves tell the story: the same preset that runs over 150 frames at 1080p drops below the hundreds at 1440p. A smooth rise in GPU workload is the reason.

At 3840x2160, the limits of the Radeon card become clear. Low yields a 63 average, Medium a 48 average with a 41 to 55 window, High falls to 36, and Ultra to 35. The gap between Low at 1080p and Low at 4K is a loss of about a third of the performance, when you compare the raw 156 and 63 values. The data show that the i7-12700K can supply enough compute overhead to keep the frame flow high at low resolutions, but as the pixel load balloons, the buffer is the GPU as it shrinks across every preset. The RX 7600 is more sensitive on arena; at 4K none of the pre-cache reaches a smoothease (the highest figure is Low's 63). The smallerly detail that only Medium has a recorded minimum also points to the test batch instrumentation, but the numbers themselves clearly indicate the GPU is the binder to unlocking higher frame rates at 1440p and above.

In short, the FPS curve from pixel count is clean: 1080p is heavily sustainable, 1440p is usable, and 4K is only wrestled for waiting frame rates on the lowest controls.

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

The Intel Core i7-12700K brings a hybrid core setup: 12 cores, 20 threads, with a base of 3.60 GHz, a Max Boost of 5.00 GHz, and L3 cache of 25 MB shared. It scores a 84th percentile among all CPUs, with a 3DMark pass of 9276 at 16 threads, a single thread score of 1043, and Geekbench multi 15790. These aggregated lies show it is an upper percent chip by most measures. In Thief's lower resolution band, the measured FPS stays in the triple digits (156 Low, 118 Medium at preset), suggesting the CPU is creating a huge buffer when the GPU is not overloaded. The 12700K's performance at the other end of the scale — when resolutions go up and GPU load rises — becomes less relevant, because later the machine follows the frame of the Radeon RX 7600's 8 GB GDDR6, its 128 bit bus and 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

When compared directly to the CPU rivals presented in the nearestRivals field, the 12700K sits at the beginning point of the crowd: its average is within -0.1% of the i5-13600T (35305), -0.2% of the i7-12700KF (35365), -0.3% of the i7-13700T (35403) and -0.4% of the Core i5 213PE (35428). No large gaps, but negative deltas mean it edges just behind these. Those rivals are all at the same performance class, so the i7-12700K is not the anchor in this test; it is the ground on the part of the GPU.

In Thief, a stealth title with 2014-era draw, the CPU's 12-core/Hyper-Thread setup allows the frame to reach the fps that exceed even 155 at the casual corridor at low. The single-thread PassMark is 4013 and the multi-thread PassMark 34404, which places it well for older engines that mostly leverage 1–4 cores. The game's requirements from that era will be easily satisfied by a chip of this caliber, and the measured FPS suggests the throughput at 1080p is not going to be constrained by the main CPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Thief?

A: 156 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. The second-best is 118 for Medium at the same resolution.

Q: What performance delta lies between the i7-12700K and its closest rival?

A: The nearestRivals data shows the i7-12700K falling 0.1% behind the Intel Core i5-13600T, 0.2% behind the i7-12700KF, 0.3% behind the i7-13700T, and 0.4% behind the Core i5-213PE based on the average benchmark score.

Q: How does the RX 7600 rank overall among all compared GPUs?

A: It sits at the 57th percentile, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2310, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 34401, and an average benchmark total of 15171.

Q: What are the mean waiting marge min/max for the Medium preset at each resolution?

A: The measured min/max for Medium is 101 to 136 at 1920x1080, 69 to 93 at 2560x1440, and 41 to 55 at 3840x2160.

Q: Is this a verified dataset or an estimate?

A: The data are from a measurement run; the `dataIsMeasured` flag is true.

4. How This Combo Ranks

Among the 3720 validated CPU+GPU combinations in the database, the i7-12700K + RX 7600 identifies a rank of 2561. That placement places it not far from the back half of the table for a specific game title. In other words, when you look at the array of results column for Thief, most tested combos come out above this one. It is not a top-tier gaming pair for load - the RX 7600's 57th overall GPU score and the CPU's 84th percentile paint a hardware that is not near the top of the chart, and the player in Thief is hurt additionally by the GPU's load.

However, the ranking is the single linear nominal, and it puts this setup in the rear ~1200 block; the combo still makes for playable 1080p with the measured values. The gap between this and the best ranker relies on much more powerful graphics units. The card-locking down factors at high resolution is already visible from the FPS at 4K. Three ranks and fifty percentiles (57th for GPU, 84 for CPU) combine to a result that is below the average juice in the database. The good still: the i7-12700K is more than sufficient, so if you are pairing it, you are not likely the bottleneck for the overall build.

This data can be rejected by an evaluator of the total package, but the frame numbers are real and how it is ranked 2561 makes it a negative outlier for content-based hires not recommended for 4K Ultra in this title.

5. Measured FPS Breakdown

The table expresses the exact measured averages (and, for Medium, the minimum and maximum frame rate recordings) for this combo.

• 1920x1080
• Low: 156 average
• Medium: 118 average (min 101, max 136)
• High: 90 average
• Ultta: 86 average

• 2560x1440
• Low: 107 average
• Medium: 81 average (min 69, max 93)
• High: 62 average
• Ultta: 59 average

• 3840x2160
• Low: 63 average
• Medium: 48 average (min 41, max 55)
• High: 36 average
• Ultta: 35 average

The only settings with min/max unless it's a full measurement are the Medium labels; these are the only min fields that the test yielded. The values show the baseline regardless of settings, so at 1080p the pairing clears more than enough for fast monitors; at 1440p the Ultra still holds nearly 60 but is quivering; at 4K the highest the low is 63 and the best for will be near 4K. The numbers show a consistent linear policy: as the number of pixels increase, so the frame drop, and the preset scaling is about 60 whenever you move.

6. Settings Recommendations

Because the data only places avg/min/max numbers, recommendations need to be chosen based on the measured rows. At 1920x1080, every preset is naturally playable, with the hardware in the outside. The Ultra uses 86 FPS, nothing to eschew; for spending that rate Gaming note the Medium at 118 with a min of 101 ensures more immediately smooth experience for FPS. But if you want to preserve settings, you can use Ultra without falling down: the 86 FPS comes from the same test. For general guidance, try managing down to Low only if are looking for the absolute measure of FPS—the 156 margin (a 0.5 variable) but it is overkill.

At the 2560x1440 mark, the deciding is more strict. Ultra is 59 FPS (and no min data), which might be on the advanced; Medium shows an 81 average with no min-free and a 69 min; that is a safer choice than High (62) because it holds a 69 floor. Therefore the recommendation for leading to the blowing slope is to use Medium if you want a click and min 69, or Low if the target is very good 100 frame. The jump from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS (62 to 59), so if you are tuned using Ultra, the difference is not worth the cost in any non-very clear way.

For 4K the entire row is a seal in the mirror: Low reaches 63, Medium gets 48 (min 41), High 36 and Ultra 35. The only preset that keeps an average above 60 is Low, and that is the best here. If you can live with the jagged edge, the Medium min of 41 is the low point but the average 48 may be safe for many. There is no capacity for anything better at 2560x1440n, this card is a 1080p enthusiast card. If you want a clean 60 on a 4K monitor, the only boundary is Low. Presets can deliver Cocina than 36 at Ultra there, but they do not have the significance to be quoted as smooth. For a practical recommendation: use Medium only if you are on a 1440p display and need the refresh rate stabilization; on Ultra the 4K row just compact not, so not recommended.