Thief

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a combination that heavily favors the CPU, creating a significant bottleneck in Thief. The data shows that this system, ranked 2766 out of 2851 tested combinations, is firmly in the lower tier for this game, primarily due to the graphics card's limitations. The GTX 1650, an end-of-life Turing-based GPU, struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher settings, while the Ultra 5 235 sits idle, waiting for the GPU to catch up.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Thief with this hardware?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system achieves consistently playable frame rates. At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops below 60 even on Low settings, and at 3840x2160, it falls below 30 on all presets.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 or the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 the limiting factor?

A: The GPU is the definitive bottleneck. The Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The GTX 1650, with an average score of 7472, sits in the 40th percentile. The massive performance disparity between the two components means the CPU is waiting on the GPU in almost every scenario.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. It is just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350. Interestingly, it trails the Intel Arc A310 by 1%.

Q: Can this system handle Thief at Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the system achieves an average of 41 FPS. While this is playable, it is a significant drop from the 74 FPS seen on Low settings. At higher resolutions, Ultra settings result in averages of 28 FPS at 2560x1440 and just 17 FPS at 3840x2160, which are not fluid experiences.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and High settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is substantial. At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 74 FPS on Low settings to 43 FPS on High settings. This represents a 31 FPS decrease, which is a clear indicator of the GPU's limited headroom for increased graphical fidelity.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 235 compare to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375?

A: The two processors are effectively tied in performance. The Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, which is only 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375's score of 46030.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the central figure in this system's performance profile for Thief, and its limitations are stark. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the card provides a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a modest amount by modern standards, and it directly impacts how the card handles the textures and assets in Thief at higher resolutions and detail levels. The card's core clocks, a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, are the primary drivers of its compute performance, which is rated at 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32 operations.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical constraint. At 3840x2160, the system's frame rates are exceedingly low, with the High and Ultra presets both averaging just 17 FPS. This suggests that the game's memory footprint at 4K exceeds the available VRAM, causing severe performance degradation. Even at 2560x1440, the card struggles to maintain 30 FPS on High settings, averaging 29 FPS. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs further contextualizes its position; it is a low-end part that is being asked to do a demanding job.

The card's benchmark results tell a story of its age and capability. Its best DirectX performance is in the older DirectX 9 API, where it scores 124 in the Passmark test. Its DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 show that it is not well-suited for modern, more demanding APIs. Thief, a game from 2014, likely relies on DirectX 11, which is a more favorable scenario for this GPU, but the sheer resolution and setting demands still overwhelm it. The GPU's closest rivals, like the Intel Arc A310, show that even other entry-level options are in the same performance tier, but the data confirms the GTX 1650 is the limiting component in this pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling across resolutions is a textbook demonstration of a GPU-bound system. The data shows a clear and consistent pattern of performance degradation as the resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, regardless of the settings preset. This is the expected behavior when the graphics card, not the processor, is the bottleneck.

At 1920x1080, the system is somewhat playable. The Low preset yields an average of 74 FPS, which is smooth. The Medium preset drops to 56 FPS, still acceptable, while High and Ultra presets bring the average down to 43 FPS and 41 FPS, respectively. Moving to 2560x1440 shows a substantial performance hit. The Low preset average falls to 51 FPS, a 23 FPS drop from 1080p. The Medium preset drops to 39 FPS, and High and Ultra presets fall to 29 FPS and 28 FPS, respectively. This resolution marks the point where the system can no longer maintain a consistent 60 FPS even on the lowest settings.

The jump to 3840x2160 is catastrophic for this GPU. The Low preset, which is the least demanding, manages only an average of 30 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 23 FPS, and both High and Ultra presets bottom out at 17 FPS. This data indicates that the GTX 1650 is completely overwhelmed by the pixel count at 4K. The frame rate scaling is not linear; the drop from 1440p to 4K is much more severe than the drop from 1080p to 1440p. This is because the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient for the 4K workload, causing a breakdown in performance. The data confirms that the GPU's rendering capabilities are the primary constraint, as the CPU's performance remains constant across all resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a smooth gaming experience is at 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset. This combination yields an average of 74 FPS, which is well above the threshold for comfortable play. The Medium preset at 1080p, averaging 56 FPS, is also a usable option, though it represents a significant compromise in visual quality for a 24% reduction in frame rate compared to Low.

At 2560x1440, the system struggles. The Low preset, with an average of 51 FPS, is the only option that approaches playability, but it will feel less fluid than the 1080p experience. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets at this resolution produce averages of 39, 29, and 28 FPS, respectively, which are all below the ideal for a smooth experience. This resolution is not recommended for any preset.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset is recommended. Even the Low preset, with an average of 30 FPS, is borderline and will likely feel stuttery. The Medium, High, and Ultra presets, with averages of 23, 17, and 17 FPS, are simply unplayable. The data is clear: to get the best experience from this hardware, you must play at 1080p and be willing to lower the settings to Low or possibly Medium. The performance cost of increasing settings is too high relative to the visual benefit on this GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact measured average frame rates for each resolution and settings combination.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :---------- |

| 3840x2160 | High | 17 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 30 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 23 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 17 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 29 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 51 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 39 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 28 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 43 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 74 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 56 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 41 |

The data reveals a few key points. First, the difference between High and Ultra presets is minimal, with the average FPS differing by only 2 FPS at 1080p and 1 FPS at 1440p, and being identical at 4K. This suggests that the Ultra preset is not significantly more demanding than High, or that the GPU is already so saturated that it cannot differentiate between the two. Second, the Medium preset provides a middle ground, but its performance is closer to High than to Low. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium is an 18 FPS drop, while the jump from Medium to High is only a 13 FPS drop. This indicates that the Low preset is significantly lighter on the GPU, likely reducing the resolution of textures and other detailed effects.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a powerful processor that is massively overqualified for the task of gaming alongside a GTX 1650. With 14 cores and 14 threads, it is a modern, high-core-count CPU. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz can boost up to 5.00 GHz, and it has a substantial 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14769 and a single-core score of 2085. Its Passmark multithread score is 37816, and its single-thread score is 4516. These scores place the CPU in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062.

This CPU's performance is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. Its average score of 46062 is just 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375's 46030 and just 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX's 46098. This means that in terms of raw processing power, this system is on par with some of the best mobile and desktop chips available. However, in Thief, this power is largely irrelevant.

The game's performance is entirely dictated by the GPU. The CPU's job is to prepare frames for the GPU to render, and with a GPU as slow as the GTX 1650, the CPU finishes its work long before the GPU is ready for the next frame. This is why the frame rates are so low at higher resolutions; the CPU is waiting idle. The data shows a clear GPU bottleneck. A less powerful CPU would likely deliver the exact same frame rates in this game, as the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 5 235 is a future-proof component that would pair well with a much stronger graphics card, but in this specific configuration, its potential is entirely untapped.