Why, according to Hobbes, is tyranny preferable to the "state of nature"?

In answering this question, we first of all need to understand what Hobbes means by a "state of nature." Essentially, a state of nature is one occupied by men before they enter into civil society and the world of laws, regulations, and justice. In this primitive state, everyone is bound to pursue their own interests. Hobbes regards human beings as fundamentally selfish, greedy, and acquisitive. As such, we need an overriding authority to keep our rampant egotism in check.
Unfortunately, in the state of nature—because there is no sovereign to enforce any law or hold people to their contractual obligations—this does not happen. The result is chaos. In a famously powerful passage, Hobbes spells out exactly what this means in practice:

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

We cannot do anything in a state of nature, because everything is so uncertain. The only law is the law of the jungle. Everyone can do as they please, but no one ever feels safe. There is no point in trying to make economic improvements or innovate; any attempt to advance knowledge is also a waste of time for the same reason: in such a chronically unstable society, any progress would be short-lived.
What does Hobbes suggest we do to avoid slipping back into the anarchy and disorder he so much fears? He suggests we enter into a social contract with each other to form a powerful sovereign. He will then use law and the fear of punishment to keep society from falling to pieces. In entering this compact, we agree to give up some of our natural rights in return for the security of our property and our persons. We are effectively buying peace and stability with our freedom.
According to Hobbes, stable government can only be entrusted to a single, powerful sovereign. In theory, this could be a parliament or other legislative body, but Hobbes would prefer sovereignty to reside in a single ruler. This is because Hobbes believed that the sovereign power could more accurately embody one will, as opposed to a parliament, which would, in all likelihood, be riven by faction.
The sovereign needs to have unlimited power. If his power is limited in any way, then he will not be sovereign. It is important to remember that, for Hobbes, the sovereign still remains in the state of nature. As such, he is still free to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Accordingly, any legal, political, or constitutional limits placed upon him would mean that he'd become a party to the original social contract, just like us. Who would be the sovereign then?