Thief

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a severely GPU-bound experience in Thief, ranking near the bottom of all tested combinations. The data shows a combination that can handle the game at 1080p with adjusted settings, but collapses at higher resolutions, making the GTX 1650 the definitive bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU-GPU combo in Thief?

A: This combination ranks 1580th out of 1642 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested for this game. The rank reflects the severe performance limitations imposed by the GPU at higher resolutions.

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS in Thief?

A: Yes, but only at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the measured average FPS is 76.8. At Medium settings, the average drops to 56.3, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. No other resolution or settings combination reaches 60 FPS.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713, placing it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and the AMD Radeon 550X. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, showing it is essentially tied with all four rivals.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K sits in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79102. This places it within 1.2% of the AMD EPYC 7413 and within 0.9% of the Intel Core i9-14900K, indicating it is a top-tier processor.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the FPS results in Thief?

A: The GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. The GTX 1650 only reaches the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 97th percentile. The FPS data confirms this, as performance scales with resolution changes more than with CPU-intensive settings.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a playable experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset provides an average of 51.2 FPS, which is the only playable option at this resolution. The Medium preset drops to 37.1 FPS, and the High preset yields 30.5 FPS, making Low the only viable choice for smoother gameplay.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant constraint in this pairing. With a 4 GB GDDR5 memory buffer on a 128-bit bus delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, the GPU’s capacity is modest by modern standards. Its base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are not the issue; rather, the 896 shading units and 32 ROPs limit pixel throughput to 53.28 GPixel/s. The FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is directly reflected in the benchmark results, where the GPU scores only 7880 in Passmark G3D and sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs.

In Thief, the GPU’s limitations become apparent when moving from 1080p to 1440p and 4K. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 76.8 FPS, but this drops to 51.2 FPS at 2560x1440 and 30.7 FPS at 3840x2160. The scaling is almost linear with pixel count, indicating the GPU is saturated. The 4 GB VRAM is likely a factor at High and Ultra presets, where 4K performance collapses to 17 FPS and 17.4 FPS respectively. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals, including the RTX 3050 A Mobile and Radeon 550X, are all within 0.5% of its average score, reinforcing that this GPU is entry-level and cannot sustain high-fidelity gaming at modern resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a high-end desktop processor with 20 cores and 20 threads, running at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It has 30 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The CPU’s synthetic benchmarks are exceptional: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 50009, and single-core scores 7060. In Passmark, it achieves a multi-thread score of 58838 and a single-thread score of 4904. This places the CPU in the 97th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 79102, just 0.2% behind the Core Ultra 7 265KF and 0.9% behind the Core i9-14900K.

In Thief, the CPU is not the limiting factor. The FPS differences between settings presets at the same resolution are substantial, which indicates GPU-bound rendering. For example, at 1080p, the Low preset delivers 76.8 FPS while Ultra delivers 39 FPS, a 49% reduction that points to increased GPU workload rather than CPU strain. The CPU’s 20 cores are far more than Thief, a 2014 title, can utilize, so the processor is effectively idle waiting for the GPU. The data shows that even at 4K Low, where the CPU would theoretically be less stressed, the system only manages 30.7 FPS, confirming that the CPU’s headroom is irrelevant to the final output.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination ranks 1580th out of 1642 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems in the database for Thief. The ranking is driven entirely by the GPU, as the CPU is in the top 3% of all processors. The disparity between the CPU’s 97th percentile and the GPU’s 43rd percentile creates an unbalanced system where the processor’s capabilities are wasted. The nearest rival CPUs, such as the Core i9-14900K, score 79824, which is only 0.9% higher than the 265K, yet the FPS results would be identical with the same GPU. The combo rank of 1580 indicates that almost every other tested system, including those with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, outperforms this pairing in Thief. The only way this rank improves is by lowering resolution and settings, but even at 1080p Low, the 76.8 FPS result is modest compared to what a balanced system could achieve.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of settings for this combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only setting that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, with an average of 76.8 FPS. The Medium preset at 56.3 FPS is playable but marginal, while High drops to 45.1 FPS and Ultra falls to 39 FPS. For a consistent experience at 1080p, Low is recommended. At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields 51.2 FPS, which is the only acceptable option; Medium drops to 37.1 FPS and High to 30.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset is playable, with Low at 30.7 FPS and all others below 26 FPS. The best experience is therefore at 1080p with Low settings, which provides the highest frame rate and avoids the stutter-prone lower FPS ranges. Users seeking better visual fidelity should stick to 1080p Medium, accepting the 56.3 FPS average.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the FPS results are as follows: Low averages 76.8 FPS, Medium averages 56.3 FPS, High averages 45.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 37.8 FPS, showing a 49% performance penalty for maxing out settings. At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 51.2 FPS, Medium 37.1 FPS, High 30.5 FPS, and Ultra 26.7 FPS. The Low preset is the only one above 40 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls below 30 FPS. At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 30.7 FPS, Medium 25.4 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra 17.4 FPS. The 4K results are uniformly poor, with even Low settings failing to reach 31 FPS. Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings provide roughly double the FPS of Ultra settings, and each settings tier reduces performance by approximately 25-35%.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is stark and reveals the GPU bottleneck. At Low settings, the system averages 76.8 FPS at 1080p, which drops to 51.2 FPS at 1440p (a 33% reduction) and 30.7 FPS at 4K (a 60% reduction from 1080p). At High settings, the drop is even more severe: 45.1 FPS at 1080p falls to 30.5 FPS at 1440p (32% reduction) and 17 FPS at 4K (62% reduction). The scaling is not linear with pixel count—4K has 4 times the pixels of 1080p, yet the FPS only drops by roughly 60%, suggesting the GPU is not only pixel-bound but also fill-rate limited. The fact that Low settings scale better (60% drop) than High settings (62% drop) indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and ROP throughput are the limiting factors, not the shader cores. The CPU’s role in this scaling is negligible; with a 97th percentile processor, there is no CPU-induced frame drop at any resolution. The data conclusively shows that the GTX 1650 is the sole arbiter of performance, and any attempt to improve FPS must involve reducing resolution or settings, not upgrading the processor.