Thief

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-13700K drives this Thief configuration with 16 cores and 24 threads, split between performance and efficiency clusters under Raptor Lake architecture. The processor’s base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz provide the single-thread headroom that a 2014 stealth title like Thief typically leverages. Benchmark data reinforces this strength: the chip scores 1136 in 3dmark_single_thread and 2116 in cinebench_r23_singlecore, placing it in the 89th percentile among all CPUs tested. In multi-threaded workloads, the 13700K records 12412 in 3dmark_max_threads and 30745 in cinebench_r23_multicore, showing that while the game may not use all 24 threads, the processor’s overall capability ensures no CPU-bound bottleneck at lower resolutions.

The cache hierarchy—80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3—supports rapid data access for game logic and AI routines in Thief’s stealth scenarios. The CPU’s performance relative to immediate rivals is nearly identical: it trails the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 by only 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 by 0.3% in average benchmark score, while leading the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX and Intel Xeon w3-2535 by 0.5% each. This clustering means the 13700K delivers essentially the same computational headroom as its closest competitors, making any FPS differences in Thief attributable to GPU or memory behavior rather than CPU choice.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU’s influence becomes visible only when the GPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 212 FPS, a figure that far exceeds the GPU’s 4K Low result of 102 FPS. The 13700K’s 3dmark_16_threads score of 10717 and passmark_multithread score of 45887 indicate that even at high frame rates, the processor has reserve capacity. The 24 threads matter for background tasks and modern OS overhead, but Thief’s core engine, released in 2014, primarily utilizes a handful of threads. Consequently, the 13700K’s single-core performance—evidenced by its 3dmark_2_threads score of 2262 and passmark_single_thread score of 4333—is the more relevant metric for this game’s frame pacing.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core i7-13700K compare to its closest CPU rivals in raw benchmark terms?

A: The 13700K averages 46881 points, which is 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 (46971) and 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 (47022). It sits 0.5% above both the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX (46654) and Intel Xeon w3-2535 (46653). These differences are within noise, so the CPU is effectively a performance peer to all four.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 192 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, with a minimum of 163 FPS and a maximum of 221 FPS. This places the combo well above the 144 Hz refresh rate common in gaming monitors, and even the minimum frame rate exceeds 160 FPS.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 4K Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo averages 56 FPS. Given that the CPU’s single-thread performance is in the 89th percentile and the GPU’s percentile rank is only 55th, the Radeon RX 9070 XT is the clear limiting factor at this resolution and preset. The CPU has ample headroom to feed the GPU at lower settings where frame rates exceed 200 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU’s average benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon RX 9070 XT averages 13543 points. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13536), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13515), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA P106-090 (13470), and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13407). This places it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, which is modest for a modern card.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 174 FPS, while Ultra yields 96 FPS. This represents a 78 FPS drop (44.8%) from Low to Ultra. The Medium preset sits between at 132 FPS, showing a smooth progression of GPU load as settings increase.

Q: Does the game run smoothly at 4K High?

A: Yes, the average FPS at 3840x2160 High is 59, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered smooth. The frame rate does not dip below 60 in the measured data (no minimum recorded), but the average suggests that players seeking a locked 60 FPS experience should consider Medium, which averages 78 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT achieves a rank of 595 out of 3720 tested combos in Thief. This places the pairing in the top 16% of all configurations evaluated, which is a strong result given the game’s age and the GPU’s relatively modest 55th percentile rank. The CPU’s 89th percentile standing contributes significantly to this ranking, as the processor’s high single-thread and multi-thread scores ensure that the system never becomes CPU-limited in Thief’s engine.

Compared to other combos, this rank indicates that the 13700K + RX 9070 XT pairing outperforms 3125 other configurations tested in the database. The gap between the CPU’s percentile (89th) and GPU’s percentile (55th) is notable: it suggests that this particular combo’s rank is buoyed by the processor’s strength, while the GPU holds the system back from higher placements. In a game like Thief, which was released in 2014 and has moderate GPU demands, the CPU’s ability to push high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p is what propels this combo into the top 600.

The rank also reflects the measured FPS data: at 1080p Medium, the combo hits 192 FPS, and at 1440p Medium, it maintains 132 FPS. These figures are consistent with a top-600 placement, as many lower-ranked combos would struggle to exceed 100 FPS at these settings. Conversely, the 4K Ultra result of 56 FPS is modest, but the overall ranking weighs all resolutions and settings, and the lower-resolution results are strong enough to secure this position.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 212 FPS, while Medium yields 192 FPS (minimum 163, maximum 221). High settings average 147 FPS, and Ultra drops to 140 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra costs 72 FPS (34%), but even at Ultra, the frame rate exceeds 140 FPS, ensuring a fluid experience on any 1080p display.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with lower absolute numbers. Low averages 174 FPS, Medium averages 132 FPS (minimum 112, maximum 152), High averages 101 FPS, and Ultra averages 96 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 78 FPS (44.8%), which is a slightly larger percentage drop than at 1080p. This indicates that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor at this resolution, though the CPU still provides enough headroom to keep frame rates above 90 FPS even at Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the GPU’s limitations become pronounced. Low averages 102 FPS, Medium averages 78 FPS (minimum 66, maximum 89), High averages 59 FPS, and Ultra averages 56 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS (45.1%), similar to the 1440p drop. However, the absolute frame rates are much lower, with Ultra dipping to 56 FPS—just below the 60 FPS threshold. The minimum frame rate at 4K Medium is 66 FPS, which is acceptable, but High and Ultra do not record minimums, suggesting that frame pacing may vary.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Medium minimum of 163 FPS is 147 FPS higher than the 4K Medium minimum of 66 FPS. This 2.5x difference highlights how resolution scaling impacts the GPU’s workload. The maximum frame rates follow a similar trend: 221 FPS at 1080p Medium versus 89 FPS at 4K Medium, a 132 FPS difference.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data shows a clear and consistent drop in frame rates as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the average FPS falls from 192 at 1920x1080 to 132 at 2560x1440 (a 31.3% decrease), and then to 78 at 3840x2160 (a 40.9% decrease from 1440p). This pattern indicates that the GPU’s rendering load is scaling as expected with pixel count, but the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution.

At Low settings, the frame rates are 212 FPS at 1080p, 174 FPS at 1440p, and 102 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 72 FPS (41.4%), while the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 38 FPS (17.9%). This non-linear scaling suggests that at 1080p and 1440p Low, the CPU may be providing near-maximum frame rates (212 and 174 FPS), while at 4K Low, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck. The fact that 1080p Low (212 FPS) is nearly double 4K Low (102 FPS) reinforces this interpretation.

At Ultra settings, the frame rates are 140 FPS at 1080p, 96 FPS at 1440p, and 56 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 44 FPS (31.4%), and from 1440p to 4K is 40 FPS (41.7%). The percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is larger than from 1080p to 1440p, indicating that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth—measured at 644.6 GB/s—are being taxed more heavily at 4K. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is not an issue at any resolution, as Thief’s 2014-era textures are unlikely to exceed even a fraction of this capacity.

The limiting component analysis points squarely at the GPU. The 13700K’s single-thread score of 1136 in 3dmark_single_thread and its 89th percentile rank mean that at 1080p Low (212 FPS), the CPU is still not saturated. At 4K Ultra (56 FPS), the GPU is clearly the bottleneck, as the CPU’s frame rate ceiling is far higher. The data suggests that a more powerful GPU would yield higher frame rates at all resolutions, while upgrading the CPU would provide negligible gains in Thief.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS as a baseline, the 4K Medium preset (78 FPS average, 66 FPS minimum) is the highest quality option that guarantees a smooth experience at 3840x2160. The 4K High preset averages 59 FPS, which is functionally at the 60 FPS threshold but may dip below in demanding scenes, making Medium the safer choice for a locked frame rate at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset averages 96 FPS, which is well above 60 FPS and provides the best visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 132 FPS, which is ideal for high refresh rate monitors (120-144 Hz), but Ultra’s 96 FPS is still sufficient for most displays. If a player prioritizes frame rate over visuals, the High preset at 101 FPS offers a balance between the two.

At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 140 FPS, so the Ultra preset (140 FPS average) is the clear recommendation for maximum visual quality. The Medium preset at 192 FPS is better suited for 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors, while the Low preset at 212 FPS is unnecessary given the high frame rates available at higher settings. The minimum frame rate at 1080p Medium is 163 FPS, which remains above the refresh rate of most 1080p displays.

The best experience per the measured rows depends on the display’s refresh rate. For a standard 60 Hz display, 4K Medium (78 FPS) offers the highest resolution with a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. For a 144 Hz display, 1440p Ultra (96 FPS) is the optimal choice, as it provides high visual quality while staying within the refresh window for most scenes. For 240 Hz displays, 1080p Medium (192 FPS) or High (147 FPS) are the only presets that can consistently exceed 144 FPS, with Medium being the better option for higher frame rates.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the primary determinant of frame rates in this Thief configuration, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. The GPU’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s, which is more than sufficient for Thief’s 2014-era textures and geometry. The boost clock of 2970 MHz and game clock of 2400 MHz, paired with 4096 shading units, deliver the raw compute necessary to handle the game’s lighting and shadow effects.

The GPU’s benchmark scores are modest relative to its modern positioning: it averages 13543 points and sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals—the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13536), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13515), NVIDIA P106-090 (13470), and AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13407)—are all within 1% in average score, meaning the RX 9070 XT’s raw computational throughput is comparable to these older or lower-tier cards in synthetic tests. However, the measured FPS in Thief tells a more nuanced story: the GPU achieves 212 FPS at 1080p Low, which is respectable for a 2014 title, but drops to 56 FPS at 4K Ultra, indicating that its fill rate and memory bandwidth become limiting factors at higher pixel counts.

The GPU’s architecture, RDNA 4.0 on a 4 nm process, includes 64 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but Thief does not utilize ray tracing, so these features are irrelevant to the measured results. The 128 ROPs and 256 TMUs provide a texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s, which are the specifications that directly impact frame rates in a game like Thief. The 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is overkill for this title, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p.

At 4K, the GPU’s 16 GB memory capacity is not the constraint; rather, the 644.6 GB/s bandwidth and the pixel fill rate are the bottlenecks. The frame rate drop from 4K Medium (78 FPS) to 4K High (59 FPS) demonstrates that higher settings increase memory and shading loads, pushing the GPU closer to its limits. The minimum frame rate at 4K Medium (66 FPS) suggests that the GPU can maintain playable performance, but at High and Ultra, the lack of recorded minimums implies inconsistent frame pacing. For players seeking stable performance, the GPU’s sweet spot is 1440p Ultra (96 FPS) or 1080p Ultra (140 FPS), where its strengths are fully utilized without exceeding its capabilities.