Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H paired with the AMD Radeon 760M places this configuration near the very bottom of the database. With a combo rank of 2989 out of 2996 tested combinations, this system is positioned in the 0.2nd percentile of all tested hardware pairings. The benchmark results consistently show average frame rates in the teens and twenties across all tested settings and resolutions, indicating that this is a hardware pairing fundamentally challenged by the simulator's rendering load. The data suggests that users should have modest expectations for fluidity, as even the most favorable settings yield results that are marginal for a smooth experience. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance to provide a clear picture of what this specific mobile platform can deliver.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal way to experience Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware is to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 34 FPS, which is the highest average frame rate recorded across any resolution and settings combination. This is the only configuration that approaches a consistently playable frame rate, though it still falls short of the 60 FPS target that many simulation enthusiasts prefer. The Medium preset at 1080p produces an average of 27 FPS, a 20% decrease from Low, while the High and Ultra presets drop further to 20 FPS and 19 FPS respectively.

The data clearly shows a linear relationship between visual quality and performance. Increasing the settings from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 7 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal at just 1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features are not heavily taxing the GPU at this resolution. For a playable experience, the Low preset at 1080p is the only viable choice, as it provides the highest average frame rate. Users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness may consider Medium, which at 27 FPS is still marginally playable, but the frame time consistency shown by the minimum FPS of 23 indicates potential stuttering.

At higher resolutions, the frame rates become increasingly prohibitive. The 2560x1440 Low preset averages 28 FPS, and the 3840x2160 Low preset averages 20 FPS. Neither of these meets the threshold for a fluid experience. The data suggests that users should remain at 1920x1080 and accept the Low preset as the baseline, with Medium as a possible compromise for those who can tolerate lower frame rates. The Ultra preset, which averages only 19 FPS at 1080p, offers no meaningful advantage over High and should be avoided. In summary, the measured data indicates that Low settings at 1080p provide the best balance of playability and visual information for this hardware combination.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, featuring 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. It operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate. The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the host system's main memory for graphics data, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This shared memory architecture is a significant factor in the performance observed in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game's large texture datasets must be accessed through the system memory bus, which is shared with the CPU.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 6019. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, with the Radeon 760M scoring 0.3% higher than both. This indicates that the integrated GPU performs at a level comparable to entry-level discrete graphics cards from previous generations. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is clearly the primary bottleneck, as evidenced by the dramatic frame rate collapse at higher resolutions. The data shows that at 3840x2160, even the Low preset only achieves 20 FPS, which is a 41% drop from the 34 FPS at 1920x1080 Low. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering, even at the lowest quality settings.

The GPU's 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs are particularly limiting for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on texture filtering and pixel throughput for terrain detail. The 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute performance is modest, and the GPU's pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are insufficient for the high-resolution demands of this title. The benchmark results show that the GPU's performance is more consistent with an entry-level mobile part than a desktop solution. The measured FPS data confirms that the Radeon 760M is the limiting factor across all tested configurations, with the CPU having little opportunity to influence results due to the GPU's inability to keep up with the rendering load.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which is indicative of a GPU-bound scenario. At the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 34 FPS at 1920x1080 to 28 FPS at 2560x1440, a 17.6% decrease. The further jump to 3840x2160 yields 20 FPS, a 28.6% decrease from 1440p and a 41.2% decrease from 1080p. This scaling curve is steep, with the 4K resolution presenting a particularly heavy burden. The Medium preset shows a similar trend: 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40.7% drop from 1080p to 4K. The High preset follows suit with 20 FPS at 1080p, 16 FPS at 1440p, and 12 FPS at 4K, a 40% reduction. The Ultra preset drops from 19 FPS at 1080p to 15 FPS at 1440p and 11 FPS at 4K, a 42.1% decline from 1080p to 4K.

These scaling patterns strongly suggest that the AMD Radeon 760M's rendering capabilities are the dominant constraint. The consistent 40% performance penalty for moving from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is simply unable to process the increased pixel count efficiently. The system shared memory architecture, which provides bandwidth that is "System Dependent," likely exacerbates this issue, as the higher resolutions require more memory bandwidth for texture and framebuffer data. The data does not show any evidence of CPU involvement in this scaling, as the frame rate drops are uniform regardless of the graphical settings. This uniformity suggests that the CPU, with its 14 cores and 18 threads, is not the limiting factor at these resolutions.

The minimum FPS values recorded for the Medium preset provide additional insight. At 3840x2160, the minimum FPS is 13, while at 2560x1440 it is 18, and at 1920x1080 it is 23. These minimums track closely with the averages, indicating that the frame time distribution is relatively consistent, with no sudden spikes of severe stuttering. However, the low absolute values mean that even the best-case minimum FPS of 23 at 1080p Medium is below the threshold for a smooth 30 FPS experience. The data indicates that this hardware combination is not suited for resolutions above 1080p, and even at 1080p, the performance is marginal. The resolution scaling analysis confirms that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, and users seeking higher resolutions would need significantly more powerful graphics hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and AMD Radeon 760M combination ranks 2989 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 0.2% of all systems in the database. This rank is a stark indicator of the performance level, as only 7 other combinations perform worse in this specific game. The ranking reflects the combined limitations of the integrated GPU and the mobile CPU, which are at a significant disadvantage compared to desktop parts and higher-end mobile components. The data shows that this combo is not merely in the lower quartile or decile; it is at the very bottom of the performance hierarchy.

The CPU itself, when benchmarked in isolation, performs moderately well. Its average benchmark score of 27507 places it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 and the Intel Core i5-12600K. The deltaPct values show that the Core Ultra 5 125H is within 0.3% of these CPUs' average scores, indicating that the processor is not a weak link in general compute tasks. However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's limitations dominate the overall performance, dragging the combo's rank down to the bottom. The GPU, in contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6019, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, are entry-level parts, and the Radeon 760M's performance is only 0.3% higher than these.

The disparity between the CPU's relatively strong performance and the combo's bottom-tier rank highlights the game's heavy reliance on GPU throughput. Microsoft Flight Simulator's complex rendering pipeline, which includes detailed terrain, dynamic weather, and photorealistic scenery, places a massive load on the graphics processor. The data suggests that even a top-tier CPU cannot compensate for an underpowered GPU in this title. The combo rank of 2989 is a clear message to users that this hardware configuration is designed for general productivity and light gaming, not for demanding flight simulation. The measured FPS data, with averages never exceeding 34 FPS at any testing point, corroborates this ranking and sets expectations for a challenging experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a 14-core, 18-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. It features a 112 KB L1 cache per core, a 2 MB L2 cache per core, and a shared 18 MB L3 cache. The CPU's benchmark results indicate solid performance for a mobile part, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12804.5 and a single-core score of 1647.5. Its PassMark multithread score of 21100 and single-thread score of 3399 place it in a competitive position among modern processors. The CPU's percentile rank of 79 versus all CPUs suggests that it offers above-average performance in general applications.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, however, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows that at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the system achieves 34 FPS, which is the highest recorded average. This is a modest result, but it indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data to reach this frame rate. The CPU's 18 threads are likely sufficient to handle the game's simulation and physics calculations, which are known to be CPU-intensive. The data does not show any evidence of CPU bottlenecking at these settings, as the frame rates scale consistently with resolution and settings changes, which is a characteristic of a GPU-bound workload.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which is shared with the GPU in this system, could be a limiting factor, but the benchmark data does not directly measure this. The CPU's integrated graphics, the Arc Xe-LPG 96EU, is not used for this game, as the system utilizes the discrete AMD Radeon 760M. The CPU's performance in this context is best described as adequate but unremarkable. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12804.5 is respectable, but it does not translate into high frame rates in this simulator due to the GPU's constraints. The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary cause of the low performance, as the system's ranking and FPS figures are consistent with a GPU-limited configuration. If a more powerful GPU were paired with this CPU, the frame rates would likely improve, but the current data shows the CPU is operating within its expected range.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 34, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is this CPU-GPU combo suitable for 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 11 on Ultra to 20 on Low settings, which is far below playable standards.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, and 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The Low preset averages 34 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 19 FPS, representing a 15 FPS or 44.1% decrease in performance.

Q: Does the CPU performance influence the frame rates in this game?

A: The data suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. The Core Ultra 5 125H has a high percentile rank of 79, but the GPU's limitations dominate, as indicated by the consistent frame rate drops with resolution increases.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 2989 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 0.2% of all tested hardware pairings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents the exact measured FPS data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and AMD Radeon 760M in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| 3840x2160 | High | 12 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 20 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 16 | 13 | 18 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 11 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 16 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 28 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 22 | 18 | 25 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 15 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 20 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 34 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 27 | 23 | 31 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 19 | - | - |

The data illustrates a consistent progression: at 1080p, the Low preset yields 34 FPS, which is the only average above 30. The Medium preset at 1080p provides 27 FPS with a minimum of 23 and maximum of 31, showing a tight range. At 1440p, performance drops across all settings, with Low at 28 FPS and Ultra at 15 FPS. At 4K, the averages fall to 20 FPS on Low and 11 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K has a recorded minimum of 13 FPS, which is the lowest minimum across all tested points. These figures confirm that the system is only marginally usable at 1080p with the lowest settings, and all other configurations result in frame rates that are below the threshold for a smooth simulation experience. The lack of min and max FPS data for the High, Low, and Ultra presets indicates that only average values were captured for those settings, but the available data provides a comprehensive picture of the performance envelope.