Thief

# Thief Performance Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The pairing of Intel's Core Ultra 5 245 with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1650 produces a system that sits near the very bottom of the tested combo hierarchy for Thief, ranking 2766 out of 2851 tested combinations. The data reveals a stark performance ceiling imposed primarily by the GPU, with the CPU showing substantial headroom that goes largely unused in this 2014 stealth title. The measured frames per second across resolutions and settings tell a consistent story: this is a configuration built for 1080p play, and even then, only at lower presets. The gap between the CPU's capabilities and the GPU's output is the defining characteristic of this pairing, and the benchmark results highlight exactly where the bottleneck lives.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and reveals a system that is overwhelmingly GPU-limited. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 74 FPS at 1920x1080 to 51 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 23 FPS reduction — and then plunges to 30 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 59.5% loss from 1080p to 4K at the lowest preset, a scaling curve that points directly at the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus struggling to feed the increasing pixel counts. The pattern repeats at Medium settings, where 1080p yields 56 FPS, 1440p drops to 39 FPS, and 4K falls to 23 FPS. High settings show an even steeper cliff: 43 FPS at 1080p, 29 FPS at 1440p, and just 17 FPS at 4K.

The 4K numbers are telling in their consistency. Both High and Ultra presets bottom out at exactly 17 FPS at 3840x2160, suggesting the GPU has hit a hard performance wall regardless of how much graphical detail is being requested. The Medium preset at 4K manages only 23 FPS, with minimums of 19 FPS and maximums of 26 FPS, indicating that even the most forgiving settings cannot rescue playability at this resolution. What makes this especially clear is the fact that the CPU — with 14 cores, 14 threads, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock — is far more capable than what this game demands. The data implies that dropping resolution from 4K to 1080p yields massive gains (from 17 to 43 FPS at High, for instance) precisely because it relieves pressure on the GPU's limited resources, not because the CPU needed the help.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear limiting factor in this configuration. Its specifications — 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth — are modest by modern standards, and the benchmark results reflect this. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 7880 places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% higher), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% higher), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% higher). The only competitor it meaningfully trails is the Intel Arc A310, which scores 1% higher. This is a GPU that sits at the edge of playability in a game from 2014, and the measured FPS across all resolutions confirms that assessment.

The memory configuration deserves particular scrutiny. With 4 GB of VRAM, the GTX 1650 is likely hitting capacity limits at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 17 matches the High preset exactly, suggesting that the GPU's compute and memory subsystems are saturated rather than being differentiated by graphical complexity. The boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1485 MHz are fixed by the hardware, and the data shows no sign of clock-related variability — the performance is consistently low rather than fluctuating, which points to sustained resource exhaustion. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for 4K workloads in this title, and the FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS limits raw shader work. The GTX 1650 was released in 2019 and is listed as end-of-life, and the Thief results show why: it delivers playable framerates only at 1080p Low (74 FPS) or Medium (56 FPS), with everything above that falling below 60 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of playable configurations. At 1920x1080, Low settings yield 74 FPS average, which is the only preset in the entire test matrix that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings at 1080p produce 56 FPS with minimums of 48 FPS and maximums of 65 FPS — a playable experience for most users, though the minimum frame rate dips close to the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the floor for acceptable performance. High settings at 1080p drop to 43 FPS, and Ultra falls further to 41 FPS. The delta between High and Ultra at 1080p is just 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features are nearly free in terms of performance cost, but neither preset achieves smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings deliver 51 FPS, which is playable but noticeably below the 1080p Low figure. Medium drops to 39 FPS with a range of 33-45 FPS, which may be borderline for some players. High (29 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) both fall below the 30 FPS threshold, making them poor choices for anything other than screenshots. At 3840x2160, no setting achieves playable framerates: Low is 30 FPS, Medium is 23 FPS, High is 17 FPS, and Ultra is 17 FPS. The recommendation from the data is unambiguous: 1080p Medium offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with 1080p Low reserved for users who prioritize frame rate above all else. The 56 FPS average at 1080p Medium, combined with the 48 FPS minimum, represents the sweet spot for this hardware combination.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2766 out of 2851 tested combinations places this pairing in the bottom 3% of all systems tested in Thief. This is a remarkably low position, especially when considering the CPU's individual standing. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (-0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (-0.5%), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (+0.6%), and Intel Core i5-14600K (+0.8%) — all perform within 1% of it, indicating a highly competitive mid-range to upper-mid-range processor. The GPU, by contrast, languishes at the 40th percentile with an average benchmark score of 7472.

The massive disparity between the CPU's 90th percentile ranking and the GPU's 40th percentile ranking explains the combo's poor overall position. This is a textbook case of a bottlenecked configuration — the CPU has far more capability than the GPU can utilize in a game like Thief, which is primarily GPU-bound at higher resolutions and settings. The rank of 2766 out of 2851 means that only 85 other tested combinations performed worse, and those likely pair similarly mismatched components. The data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield substantial performance gains without any need to change the processor, since the CPU's headroom is largely untapped. The fact that the CPU's nearest rivals are within 1% of its average score suggests that swapping the Ultra 5 245 for any of those alternatives would not meaningfully change this combo's ranking — the GPU is the determining factor.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is, by every available metric, more than sufficient for Thief. Its 14 cores and 14 threads, combined with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz, provide computing power that far exceeds the demands of a 2014 stealth game. The CPU's benchmark results are strong across the board: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924, single-core score of 4648, and PassMark multi-thread score of 38706. The single-thread performance is particularly relevant for older games like Thief, which often rely heavily on one or two cores; the 4648 Cinebench R23 single-core score indicates excellent performance in this regard. The PassMark single-thread score of 4394 reinforces this assessment.

The CPU's architecture — Arrow Lake on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die — provides a level of efficiency and performance that is entirely wasted in this configuration for Thief. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 192 KB of L1 cache per core are ample for gaming workloads, and the dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth ensures the CPU is not starved for data. The measured FPS data shows no signs of CPU limitation: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 74 FPS, which is likely close to the game engine's own limits or the GPU's maximum output, rather than a CPU constraint. At 4K, the FPS drops to 17-30 regardless of settings, which is purely a GPU limitation. The CPU's 90th percentile ranking and its nearest rivals being within 1% of its average score confirm that it is not the weak link in this chain. In fact, the data suggests that this CPU could drive a far more powerful GPU without becoming a bottleneck in Thief.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system?

A: The measured data shows 1920x1080 at Medium settings provides 56 FPS average with a 48 FPS minimum and 65 FPS maximum, making it the best balance of quality and performance. 1080p Low achieves 74 FPS if frame rate is the top priority.

Q: Can this system run Thief at 4K?

A: No setting achieves playable framerates at 3840x2160. The best result is 30 FPS at Low settings, while High and Ultra both drop to 17 FPS and Medium reaches only 23 FPS with minimums of 19 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7472 places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. It is within 1% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% higher), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% higher), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% higher), while trailing the Intel Arc A310 by 1%.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The CPU ranks at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 40th percentile. The FPS drops across resolutions and settings follow a pattern consistent with GPU memory and compute limits, not CPU constraints.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking in Thief?

A: This combination ranks 2766 out of 2851 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3% of all systems tested in this game. The high CPU percentile and low GPU percentile explain this poor overall position.

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 74 at 1080p to 30 at 4K, a 59.5% reduction. At High settings, the drop is from 43 to 17 FPS, a 60.5% reduction. The scaling indicates severe GPU limitations at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the benchmark data shows a clear progression across settings. Low settings achieve the highest average of 74 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings produce an average of 56 FPS, with minimums of 48 FPS and maximums of 65 FPS. High settings drop to 43 FPS average, and Ultra settings are marginally lower at 41 FPS. The 3 FPS difference between High and Ultra suggests diminishing returns at the top end of the preset scale, while the 18 FPS gap between Low and Medium indicates that the Medium preset's additional features carry a significant performance cost.

At 2560x1440, the numbers scale downward predictably. Low settings average 51 FPS, representing a 23 FPS drop from the 1080p Low figure. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS. High settings fall to 29 FPS, and Ultra settings reach 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 12 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1 FPS. These figures indicate that 1440p is only viable at Low or Medium presets, with Medium providing a playable but not comfortable experience.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce unplayable framerates. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 19 FPS and maximum of 26 FPS. Both High and Ultra settings average exactly 17 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded for either. The identical High and Ultra figures at 4K strongly suggest that the GPU has reached a hard performance ceiling — likely related to its 4 GB VRAM capacity and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth — where additional graphical features no longer affect performance because the hardware is already fully saturated. The data across all three resolutions paints a consistent picture: this system is viable at 1080p, marginal at 1440p, and non-functional at 4K for Thief.