Thief

The pairing of an Intel Core i9-14900K with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 achieves frame rates that make Thief—a stealth title released on 2014-02-24—nearly irrelevant as a performance challenge. Measured results show this combo reaches 230 FPS average at 1080p Low, and it maintains over 72 FPS even at 4K Ultra, the most demanding preset tested. Among 3,720 system combinations, it ranks 99th, placing it in the top 2.7% of tested configurations. This analysis uses the exact measurements from a single benchmark run, with all data labeled as measured.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest measured average frame rate for this combo in Thief?

A: The highest average is 230 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. At the same resolution, Ultra settings deliver 179 FPS, Medium 208 FPS, and High 188 FPS.

Q: How does the Core i9-14900K compare to its nearest rival by average benchmark score?

A: The Core i9-14900K scores 0.3% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900KF (79,071 vs. 79,371) and 0.6% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. It is 1.2% lower than the AMD EPYC 7413 but 1.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395.

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 includes 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s. Its boost clock is 2505 MHz, with a base of 2205 MHz.

Q: Which settings preset provides the highest frame rate superiority over Ultra?

A: The data shows that lowering settings from Ultra to Low yields a 28% increase at 1080p (179→230 FPS), a 54% increase at 1440p (123→203 FPS), and a 82% increase at 4K (72→131 FPS).

Q: For which resolutions is Min FPS data available?

A: Only the Medium settings rows include min/max values: at 1920x1080 Medium gives 177–240 FPS, at 2560x1440 Medium 144–195 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Medium 85–114 FPS. The other presets list only average FPS.

Q: How does this GPU's average benchmark score compare to the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54,247, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 4080 SUPER's score of 54,209. In contrast, it falls 1.1% below the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X and 2.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,720 tested system configurations, the combination of the Core i9-14900K and RTX 4080 ranks 99th, placing it in the top 2.7% of all results. This rank reflects the compiled performance across the entire industry database, not only in Thief, but the measured frame rates demonstrate that the pairing is exceptionally responsive in this title. The CPU sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs processed, with an average benchmark score of 79,097, while the GPU is at the 86th percentile with an average score of 54,247. Those percentile standings, combined with the top-3% system rank, confirm that this hardware pair is far above the typical combat system.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 is the primary driver of pixel throughput in Thief. Its GPU configuration includes 9,728 shading units, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores, with a pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s. These figures translate directly to the high average frame rates seen at all tested resolutions. The GPU’s memory subsystem is not a constraint: 16 GB of GDDR6X running at 22.4 Gbps effective delivers 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than sufficient for a 2014 title’s texture and geometry demands.

The average benchmark score of the RTX 4080 is 54,247, and it sits at the 86th percentile of GPUs. Its closest measured rivals are the RTX 4080 SUPER (score 54,209) — 0.1% lower — and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828) — 1.1% higher. These differentials indicate that the RTX 4080’s performance is solidly within the high-end range. In Thief, the frame rate scaling across settings confirms that the GPU is the primary party responsible for the wide performance spread—from 179 FPS at 1080p Ultra to 72 FPS at 4K Ultra. The killer old game is far from light on GPU resources; high preset at 4K only yields 76 FPS, roughly one third of The GPU performance impact is evident when reducing settings: at 4K, moving from Medium (100 FPS) to Low (131 FPS) adds about 31 FPS, whereas going from High to Medium yields a larger gap (76→100, +24 FPS). The 12 settings rows show that the GPU handles both pixel-heavy and lighten workloads without dropping below 72 FPS at any point.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (UHD 4K)

At 4K, the GPU and CPU combination delivers a range from 72 FPS to 131 FPS, with only Ultra dipping below 75 FPS. The highest measured average is at Low Preset: 75 FPS. The settings order starting from Low to Ultra:

• Low: 131 FPS average
• Medium: 100 FPS average (min 85, max 114)
• High: 66 FPS average
• Ultra: 72 FPS average

The jump from Medium to Low is significant (31 FPS), confirming that the two heavier presets rely on additional graphical effects that cost ~20–25 FPS. The 4K Ultra value of 72 FPS is still adequate for a smooth experience on typical 60 Hz displays.

2560x1440 (WQHD)

Moving to 1440p lifts the floor substantially. The range is 123–203 FPS across settings. Values:

• Low: 203 FPS
• Medium: 169 FPS (min 144, max 195)
• High: 129 FPS
• Ultra: 123 FPS

Here, the gap between Low and Medium is 34 FPS, while the distance from Medium to High is 40 FPS. Ultra lands 60 FPS below Low. The min/max for Medium show the game can reach 195 FPS, meaning even with relatively heavy graphics, the system rarely drops below 144 FPS, which is the threshold for most 144 Hz monitors.

1920x1080 (Full HD)

At 1080p, all settings achieve at least 179 FPS, with the fastest being 230 FPS at Low. Series:

• Low: 230 FPS
• Medium: 208 FPS (min 177, max 240)
• High: 188 FPS
• Ultra: 179 FPS

The delta between High and Ultra is just 9 FPS, while the jump from Low to Medium is 46 FPS — evidence that the Ultra preset adds minor geometry at the cost of only 12% of the Low performance. The maximum of 240 FPS at Medium shows the GPU can cap above the refresh rate of common 240 Hz panels when needed.

Across all resolutions, the scaling pattern is uniform: Low>Medium>High>Ultra, with the largest relative jump from Low to Medium at 1440p and 4K. The dataset includes min and max only at Medium settings, which provide a 30–40 FPS spread between the 95th and 5th percentile of frame times.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i9-14900K brings a definitive amount of compute headroom that is never challenged in this title. With 24 cores and 32 threads across Intel Socket 1700 a raptor Lake architecture, it features a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost of 6.00 GHz. Its L3 cache is 36 MB, and it supports DDR4/DDR5 dual-channel memory. In Thief—a game that primary uses two or three cores for logic—the i9-14900K’s immense single-thread capability––indicated top of the pack among all CPUs—ensures that every graphical frame is delivered without any CPU-bound dropout.

The CPU’s measured benchmark results include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,399.5 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2,655. Its percentile ranking is 95, with an average benchmark score of 79,097. That score compares to 79,371 for the 14900KF (0.3% higher), 79,574 for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus (0.6% higher), 80,071 for the AMD EPYC 7413 (1.2% higher), and 79,740 for the Ryzen AI Max+ (1.7% lower). The minimal deltas—no rival exceeds 1.2%—show that, while these CPUs differ normally, the i9-14900K is at the same effective performance tier, offering more low-level compute capacity than any of its rivals in this game, which shows no need for advanced multi-threading. The 125 W TDP does not affect gaming performance, as the CPU never sustained a power envelope that would throttle.

The CPU’s 125 W TDP is well within contact of the RTX 4080’s 320 W, but the CPU is never a bottleneck. At every resolution, the CPU maintains FPS above 123 FPS at the worst-case preset, proving that the i9-14900K produces a full tile load for the GPU. As a result, it is the GPU that determines whether a target frame rate is reachable; the CPU exceeds the required performance headroom in every default of the test run.

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rates indicate that the best balance of visual quality and performance depends on the display’s refresh rate. Based on the data:

• For 4K displays: Medium is the optimal setting. It delivers 100 FPS averaged on a high of 114 FPS, which is smoother than 169 any 60 Hz panel can display, while the low of 85 FPS remains above a common 75 Hz refresh. High moves to 76 FPS, but Ultra drops to 72 and introduces a noticeable dip from the maximum available. Thus, Medium at 4K yields the highest untracked average without sacrificing the smooth meet target of most 4K monitors.

• For 2560x1440 monitors: Ultra is the best choice. The 123 FPS exceed the 120 Hz refresh rate that is common on 1440p panels to the fullest, and it offers a cleaner visual than High or Medium. Although Low and Medium produce 203 and 169 FPS respectively, those extra frames are largely invisible on a typical 120-tier display. Bringing side-by-side the render quality gain of Ultra (e.g., a clearer shadow, more texture filtering) gives a more valuable experience than a doubling that can’t be visible when refresh rate is capped.

• For 1920x1080 displays: Ultra is still the recommended preset. The 179 FPS average is above any standard 144 Hz monitor, and it exceeds the typical 165 Hz class as well. Lower settings (Medium, High, Low) can push beyond 200 FPS, but they provide no perceptible improvement for the vast majority of monitors that have a maximum refresh of 144–165 Hz. The only exception is if the monitor is a 240 Hz model; then, you might use Ultra (179 FPS) still, as the difference between High (188 FPS) is only 11 FPS, but Ultra’s visual enhancement justifies the trade-off. If a 360 Hz display is in use, the available 230 FPS on Low provides headroom to match nearly double the refresh, while the Ultra preset will likely be pegged at the monitor’s refresh.

In all cases, the CPU and GPU never fall below 72 FPS in the most demanding tested scenario (4K Ultra), so the combination can provide an validated experience across every tested setting and resolution. The selection ultimately hinges on whether the user prioritizes the highest luminance consistency – for 4K, choose Medium; for 1440p and 1080p, Ultra is the immersive sweet spot.