Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured data shows a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and playability across the tested presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 50 FPS, which is the only setting in the entire measured set that approaches a fluid simulation experience. The Medium preset at the same resolution produces 39 FPS, while High drops to 29 FPS and Ultra to 28 FPS. Given that flight simulation demands smooth camera panning and instrument readability, the Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that consistently stays above the 30 FPS threshold, making it the recommended starting point.

However, the data also reveals that the gap between High and Ultra is marginal at every resolution. At 1080p, High achieves 29 FPS versus Ultra's 28 FPS; at 1440p, the difference is 23 versus 22 FPS; and at 4K, it is 17 versus 16 FPS. This suggests that Ultra settings impose a nearly negligible additional cost over High, so users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate can select Ultra without sacrificing much performance compared to High. The Medium preset sits as a middle ground, offering 39 FPS at 1080p with a min FPS of 33, which is above the playability floor but still noticeably lower than Low.

For users with 1440p displays, the Low preset yields 40 FPS, which is respectable for this simulator, while Medium drops to 31 FPS with a minimum of 26. The 4K resolution is largely impractical for this combo, as even Low only reaches 30 FPS, and Medium falls to 23 FPS with a minimum of 20. The data strongly indicates that 1080p Low is the optimal experience per measured performance, with 1440p Low as a viable alternative for those who accept lower frame rates in exchange for higher resolution. Medium at 1080p is the best compromise for visual quality without dropping below 30 FPS on average, though its minimum of 33 FPS suggests occasional dips.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, 1920x1080 with Low settings provides the highest average frame rate at 50 FPS. The 2560x1440 Low preset achieves 40 FPS, which is playable but less smooth, while 3840x2160 at any setting fails to reach 30 FPS on average except for Low at exactly 30 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from Low to Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The measured average FPS drops from 50 at Low to 28 at Ultra, representing a 44% reduction. The step from High to Ultra is small (29 to 28 FPS), while the jump from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, and Medium to High costs another 10 FPS.

Q: Does the combo rank well among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 2829 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 6% of all systems. This indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H paired with the AMD Radeon 890M is below average for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which aligns with the low FPS measurements across all resolutions.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only settings with recorded minimum FPS values are Medium: 20 FPS at 4K, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 1080p. For Low, High, and Ultra presets, minimum FPS values were not measured, so only average FPS data is available for those settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to limit performance in this game?

A: The resolution scaling data suggests the GPU is the primary limiter. Average FPS drops from 50 at 1080p Low to 30 at 4K Low, a 40% reduction, while at High settings it falls from 29 to 17 FPS, a 41% reduction. This consistent scaling with resolution indicates that the integrated GPU's rendering capacity is the bottleneck, not the CPU.

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but not at playable frame rates. The best 4K result is Low at 30 FPS average, with Medium at 23 FPS, High at 17 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS. None of these configurations provide a smooth experience, making 4K impractical for this hardware.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a consistent and predictable decline as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 40 at 1440p (a 20% decrease) and then to 30 at 4K (a 25% decrease from 1440p). At High settings, the progression is 29 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p (a 21% drop), and 17 FPS at 4K (a 26% drop). This near-uniform scaling pattern indicates that the frame rate is being limited by the GPU's fill rate and shading throughput, as the number of pixels increases by roughly 2.25 times from 1080p to 1440p and another 2.25 times to 4K.

The fact that Low settings at 4K (30 FPS) barely matches Medium at 1080p (39 FPS) but falls short of it further confirms that resolution is the dominant factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the CPU workload (physics, AI, scenery generation) does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the FPS scales almost linearly with resolution, which points squarely at the AMD Radeon 890M's integrated graphics being the limiting component.

The delta between Low and Ultra at each resolution is also informative: at 1080p, Low delivers 50 FPS while Ultra delivers 28 FPS (a 44% gap); at 1440p, the gap is 40 versus 22 FPS (45%); at 4K, it is 30 versus 16 FPS (47%). This consistent ~45% performance penalty for Ultra over Low across all resolutions suggests that the GPU is equally stressed by additional shading and texture work regardless of pixel count, reinforcing that the integrated GPU is saturated at all tested configurations. The data leaves little room for interpretation: this combo is heavily GPU-limited, and any resolution increase directly translates to proportional FPS loss.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of Intel Core Ultra 5 125H and AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2829 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 5.6% of all systems in the benchmark database. This is a very low ranking, indicating that this hardware configuration struggles significantly with this particular title. The percentile ranking for the CPU alone is 79 (meaning it outperforms 79% of all CPUs), but the GPU's percentile is only 45. This disparity between the CPU's relatively strong standing and the GPU's middling position suggests that the integrated graphics are dragging down the overall combo performance.

When compared to the nearest rival combos in the database, the CPU benchmarks show close competition: the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H has an average benchmark score of 27507, which is only 0.1% below the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535) and 0.3% below both the Intel Core i5-12600K and AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (both 27578). The CPU is actually 0.5% above the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355G (27382). This indicates that the CPU itself is competitive with mid-range desktop processors, yet the combo ranking remains low because the GPU cannot keep pace.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 9210, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon Vega 8 at 9221 (0.1% higher), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 at 9273 (0.7% higher), and the GTX 465 at 9294 (0.9% higher). This places the Radeon 890M in the same performance class as integrated graphics from previous generations and entry-level discrete GPUs from nearly a decade ago. The combination of a strong CPU and weak GPU results in a system where the CPU's potential is largely wasted in this GPU-bound game, explaining the poor combo rank. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a significantly faster discrete GPU would yield a much higher rank, but as configured, the system is constrained by its integrated graphics.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is a 14-core, 18-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 7 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, with a TDP of 28 W, making it a mobile-focused chip. The cache hierarchy consists of 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12804.5 and a single-core score of 1647.5, with a PassMark multithread score of 21100 and a single-thread score of 3399. These numbers place it in the 79th percentile among all CPUs, indicating solid multi-threaded performance for a mobile part.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics simulation, AI traffic, and scenery loading. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 50 FPS, but this drops to 28 FPS at Ultra. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to be relatively insensitive to resolution changes, since the CPU workload is independent of pixel count. However, the FPS drops by roughly 40-45% when moving from 1080p to 4K at every settings level, which strongly suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor at these resolutions. The CPU's 18 threads and 4.50 GHz boost clock are sufficient to feed the GPU at 1080p, but the integrated GPU cannot translate that CPU capability into higher frame rates.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database — the AMD Ryzen 7 5800, Intel Core i5-12600K, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700X — all have average scores within 0.3% of the Core Ultra 5 125H. These are desktop processors with higher TDPs, yet the mobile chip matches them in synthetic benchmarks, which is impressive. However, in this game, the combo rank of 2829 out of 2996 indicates that the CPU's strength is largely irrelevant to the overall experience because the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (89.6 GB/s bandwidth) provide adequate memory bandwidth for the game's streaming needs, but the integrated GPU's system-shared memory architecture means that the CPU and GPU compete for the same memory bandwidth, potentially exacerbating performance issues.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low delivers 50 FPS, Medium delivers 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 44, High delivers 29 FPS, and Ultra delivers 28 FPS. This represents a clear hierarchy where each settings tier costs roughly 10 FPS, except for the High to Ultra step which costs only 1 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset is the only configuration with recorded frame time variance that stays above 30 FPS even at its minimum, making it the safest choice for consistent playability. The 1080p Low preset, at 50 FPS, is the only setting that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience, though it falls short by 10 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the measured averages are: Low at 40 FPS, Medium at 31 FPS (minimum 26, maximum 36), High at 23 FPS, and Ultra at 22 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs 10 FPS at Low (50 to 40), 8 FPS at Medium (39 to 31), 6 FPS at High (29 to 23), and 6 FPS at Ultra (28 to 22). The Medium preset at 1440p has a minimum FPS of 26, which means it will drop below 30 FPS during demanding scenes, but the average of 31 FPS is marginally playable. The Low preset at 1440p maintains an average of 40 FPS, which is respectable for this resolution on integrated graphics.

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are: Low at 30 FPS, Medium at 23 FPS (minimum 20, maximum 26), High at 17 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS. The step from 1440p to 4K costs 10 FPS at Low (40 to 30), 8 FPS at Medium (31 to 23), 6 FPS at High (23 to 17), and 6 FPS at Ultra (22 to 16). The Medium preset's minimum of 20 FPS indicates significant frame time spikes, making it unsuitable for smooth gameplay. Even the Low preset at 4K only averages 30 FPS, which is the bare minimum for playability and will likely feel stuttery in practice. The data shows that this combo is only viable at 1080p, with Low and Medium being the recommended settings, while 1440p Low is a compromise and 4K is not recommended.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with 16 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with a TDP of 15 W. Its memory is system-shared, meaning it uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The GPU's compute capabilities are rated at 5.939 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Radeon 890M achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 590, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 37254, and a Vulkan score of 40808. Its PassMark G3D score is 8076, with a GPU compute score of 4157. The GPU's percentile ranking is 45, meaning it outperforms only 45% of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (0.1% higher average score), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (0.7% higher), and GTX 465 (0.9% higher), which places it in the performance tier of integrated graphics from several generations ago and entry-level discrete GPUs from 2014-2015.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is critical, as the game is heavily GPU-bound at all tested settings. The resolution scaling data confirms this: at Low settings, the FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 30 at 4K (a 40% reduction), and at Ultra settings, it drops from 28 to 16 FPS (a 43% reduction). The GPU's 1024 shading units and 32 ROPs are insufficient to handle the game's complex scenery rendering at higher resolutions, resulting in the low frame rates observed. The system-shared memory architecture also means that the GPU and CPU contend for memory bandwidth, which can exacerbate performance drops in scenes with heavy texture streaming. The GPU's 2900 MHz boost clock is high for an integrated part, but the limited shading and texture throughput (5.939 TFLOPS and 185.6 GTexel/s) cannot overcome the demands of this simulator, leading to the poor combo rank of 2829 out of 2996.