Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B580 produces a clear, resolution-dependent performance profile. The data indicates this system is a capable 1080p and 1440p machine for the sim, but it is not suited for 4K gaming at playable frame rates. Benchmark results show that the Arc B580 is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the Core Ultra 5 245 provides sufficient headroom to keep frame rates stable at lower settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates reveal a steep performance cliff as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 97, which is the highest figure recorded across all tests. Moving to Medium settings drops the average to 76 FPS, with a minimum of 64 and a maximum of 87 FPS. High settings at 1080p yield an average of 57 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Pushing to Ultra settings at this resolution results in an average of 54 FPS, indicating that the most demanding preset is not viable for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, performance degrades noticeably. The Low preset averages 78 FPS, which is still comfortably above the playable threshold. Medium settings produce an average of 61 FPS, with a minimum of 52 and a maximum of 70 FPS, making it the most demanding preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS. High settings at this resolution drop to an average of 46 FPS, while Ultra settings fall further to 44 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 17 FPS, and the jump from Medium to High is 15 FPS, showing that each increase in quality has a significant cost.

The 3840x2160 results are the weakest in the dataset. Low settings at 4K average 58 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 45 FPS, with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 52 FPS. High settings drop to 34 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 32 FPS. None of the 4K presets achieve a playable average frame rate, and the data shows that even the lowest settings cannot clear the threshold. The scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low represents a 40% reduction in average FPS, illustrating the extreme load that 4K places on the GPU.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions points to the GPU as the dominant factor in this system. The Core Ultra 5 245, with its 14 cores and 14 threads, maintains a high single-thread score of 4648 in Cinebench R23, which is critical for a simulation game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that relies heavily on single-core performance for physics and flight model calculations. However, the Arc B580’s 13.67 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is the limiting factor when resolution increases.

Evidence for this comes from the frame rate deltas between presets. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 43 FPS (97 to 54), while at 1440p the same preset gap is 34 FPS (78 to 44), and at 4K it narrows to 26 FPS (58 to 32). This compression of the performance spread at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is becoming fully saturated, leaving less headroom for quality settings to matter. The CPU is not the bottleneck here; if it were, the frame rates would remain more consistent across presets at a given resolution.

The CPU’s role is more apparent in the minimum frame rates. At 1440p Medium, the minimum FPS is 52, which is 9 FPS below the average, suggesting occasional CPU-driven hitches when the simulation loads new scenery. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 64 FPS, which is 12 FPS below the average, showing similar dips. These minimums indicate that while the CPU can sustain high average frame rates, it does produce noticeable frame time spikes under load. The Ultra 5 245’s 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth help mitigate these issues, but they do not eliminate them entirely.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 sits very close to several other processors. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is nearly identical in average benchmark score, with a delta of only -0.4%, meaning the Ultra 5 245 performs within a rounding error of that chip. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is also extremely close, trailing by just 0.5%. On the Intel side, the Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% ahead, and the Core i5-14600K is 0.8% ahead. For this game, any of these CPUs would deliver essentially the same frame rates as the Ultra 5 245, since the simulation’s single-threaded nature means the small benchmark differences are unlikely to show up in FPS.

For the GPU, the Arc B580’s nearest rivals are an interesting mix. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP is nearly identical in average score, with a delta of -0.2%, meaning the B580 is effectively tied with that older card. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 is 0.6% ahead, while the RTX 3080 is 0.7% ahead, and the NVIDIA P106-100 is 1% ahead. In practical terms, the B580 would produce frame rates within 1-2 FPS of these cards in Microsoft Flight Simulator at the same settings. The RTX 2080 and RTX 3080 are both older but well-established cards, so users coming from those GPUs would see nearly identical performance. The RX 580 2048SP comparison is notable, as it suggests the B580 offers performance similar to a much older, lower-end card in this specific workload.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS in 4K. The verdictByResolution field shows no playable settings at 3840x2160, with the best result being 58 FPS on Low, which still falls short. At 2560x1440, the system achieves playable frame rates on Low and Medium presets, with Medium being the best option at an average of 61 FPS. At 1920x1080, the same two presets are playable, but Medium is the better choice at 76 FPS average, as Low’s 97 FPS is overkill for a flight sim.

For users targeting 1080p, this combination is solid. The Medium preset delivers a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, and even High settings at 57 FPS are close enough that minor tweaks could push it over. At 1440p, Medium is the ceiling, with 61 FPS average but a 52 FPS minimum that could cause stutter in dense areas. The 4K results are not viable for smooth play; even Low settings cannot maintain 60 FPS. The system’s rank of 2788 out of 3714 tested combos reflects this middling performance, placing it in the lower third of all tested configurations for this game.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 76 FPS. This is the recommended settings level for smooth gameplay at this resolution. The minimum of 64 FPS ensures that even in heavy scenarios, the frame rate rarely dips below the playable threshold. High settings at 57 FPS are close but do not clear the bar, so Medium is the safe choice.

At 2560x1440, Medium is again the best playable preset, with an average of 61 FPS. This is a marginal pass, as the minimum of 52 FPS means there will be noticeable drops during complex scenes. Low settings at 78 FPS offer a more consistent experience, but Medium provides better visual quality at a playable average. For users who prioritize smoothness over visuals, Low is the safer pick, but Medium is technically viable.

At 3840x2160, there is no playable preset. The best option is Low at 58 FPS, which is 2 FPS short of the threshold. Users at 4K would need to lower the resolution or accept sub-60 FPS gameplay. The data does not support any settings level for a consistent 60 FPS experience at this resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2788 out of 3714 tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 25% of all tested combos, which is a reflection of the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 90 against all CPUs shows it is a strong processor, but the GPU’s percentile of 68 against all GPUs is more modest. The pairing of a high-end CPU with a mid-range GPU creates a bottleneck that becomes severe at 4K.

In practical terms, this rank means that most other tested systems will outperform this combo in this game, particularly at higher resolutions. The system’s strength is in 1080p and 1440p gaming, where the CPU’s strong single-thread performance helps maintain playable frame rates. However, the overall rank is dragged down by the 4K results, where the GPU simply does not have enough compute power. For users with 1080p or 1440p monitors, this combo is adequate, but it is not a top-tier configuration for this demanding simulator. The data suggests that users would need to step up to a more powerful GPU to achieve better 4K performance or higher quality presets at lower resolutions.