Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents one of the most demanding workloads in PC gaming, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H with the AMD Radeon 8060S produces a dataset that reveals a system balancing on the edge of playability. The measured frames per second across three resolutions and four quality presets show a configuration capable of smooth flight at lower settings, but one that struggles to maintain fluid motion at the highest visual fidelity. This analysis examines the specific roles of the CPU and GPU, how this pairing ranks against other tested systems, and what the data implies for users seeking the optimal balance between visual quality and performance in this simulator.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combination ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower half of the database. While this sounds modest, it must be considered that this is an integrated graphics solution competing against a wide field of discrete components.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H compare to its nearest CPU rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 29093, placing it in the 81st percentile of all CPUs. It is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, which scores 29123, a delta of -0.1%. It also performs nearly identically to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (+0.5%) and the Intel Core i5-13500HX (-0.6%).

Q: What is the GPU's performance standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon 8060S sits in the 87th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 55757. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, which scores 55698, a delta of 0.1%. Interestingly, it also benchmarks close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, which has a score of 56083, a delta of -0.6%.

Q: What is the best measured performance for this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 111 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This drops to 86 FPS at Medium, 65 FPS at High, and 62 FPS at Ultra, showing a significant performance cost for higher fidelity.

Q: Is the frame rate at 4K playable on this system?

A: At 3840x2160, the data shows the system averages 66 FPS on Low, 51 FPS on Medium, and 39 FPS on High. The Ultra preset produces an average of only 37 FPS, which is generally considered below the threshold for a smooth experience in a flight simulator.

Q: Does the data show a consistent frame rate relationship between the Medium and High presets?

A: Yes, the data reveals a consistent pattern. At every resolution, the High preset produces a lower average FPS than Medium. The average FPS drops from Medium to High by 15 FPS at 1080p, 17 FPS at 1440p, and 12 FPS at 4K, indicating a substantial increase in rendering load.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 8060S is the sole graphics processor in this configuration, and its capabilities define the upper limits of this system's performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and fabricated on a 4 nm process, this integrated GPU from the Strix Halo chip features a boost clock of 2900 MHz and a base clock of 1295 MHz. The data shows that this GPU, while capable, is the primary bottleneck when visual settings are increased.

The GPU's memory configuration is notable: it uses "System Shared" memory, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a critical factor, as the integrated graphics must share the system's DDR5 memory bandwidth with the CPU, which is limited to 89.6 GB/s. This shared resource architecture likely contributes to the significant performance drops observed when moving from the Low preset to higher settings, as the demand for memory bandwidth and texture throughput increases. The GPU's texture rate is 464.0 GTexel/s and its pixel rate is 185.6 GPixel/s, figures that are put under immense strain by the simulator's dense terrain and detailed aircraft models.

Benchmark results place the 8060S in the 87th percentile of all GPUs, with a score of 55757. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, scores 55698, suggesting this integrated solution performs on par with a mid-range discrete desktop card from a previous generation. The data indicates that this GPU is the limiting factor at higher presets. For instance, at 1080p, the average frame rate drops from 86 FPS at Medium to 65 FPS at High, a 24% decrease. This substantial gap suggests that the High preset introduces rendering features that heavily tax the 8060S's 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs. The GPU's FP32 performance is rated at 14.85 TFLOPS, which is a solid figure, but the memory bottleneck appears to prevent it from being fully utilized at higher detail levels.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H, part of the Meteor Lake architecture, is a 14-core, 18-thread mobile processor with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores are robust, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11875.5 and a single-core score of 1700. These figures place the CPU in the 81st percentile of all processors, indicating it is a capable performer for a mobile part. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support contribute to its overall efficiency.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the complex simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic. The benchmark data suggests that the CPU is less of a bottleneck than the GPU at lower resolutions. For example, at 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium settings results in a 25 FPS drop (from 111 to 86 FPS), and from Medium to High a further 21 FPS drop (to 65 FPS). While the GPU is clearly struggling, the CPU's strong single-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1700) helps maintain playable frame rates at these settings.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and the Intel Core i5-13500HX, with delta percentages of -0.1% and -0.6% respectively. This shows that the 135H is competitive with these desktop and high-end mobile parts in general compute tasks. However, the data from this game-specific test shows that the CPU's performance is not the primary constraint. At 4K resolution, the frame rate differences between settings are less pronounced (e.g., 66 FPS Low vs. 51 FPS Medium), which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU is providing the necessary data fast enough, but the GPU cannot render the frames quickly enough at higher resolutions and settings. The processor's 28W TDP and 7nm process node highlight its efficiency, but also indicate that it is designed for sustained performance in a mobile chassis, which is a different constraint than a desktop processor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and AMD Radeon 8060S achieves a rank of 1712 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 57th percentile of tested systems, meaning 1711 other combinations performed better. Given that this is an integrated graphics platform, this ranking is significant. The GPU's individual performance (87th percentile) is much higher than the combo's overall rank, which strongly suggests that the system's performance is being held back by another factor, likely the shared memory architecture or thermal/power constraints of the mobile platform.

The data implies that while the Radeon 8060S is a powerful iGPU, it is not a direct substitute for a high-end discrete GPU in this specific title. Its nearest GPU rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, scores slightly higher, but the delta of -0.6% is minimal. However, the RTX 5080 would have its own dedicated VRAM and memory bandwidth, which would likely lead to significantly better performance in a memory-intensive game like Flight Simulator. The combo's rank suggests that in a real-world scenario, users will need to make compromises on settings to achieve a smooth experience, unlike users with higher-ranked discrete GPU setups.

Comparing the CPU's rank (81st percentile) to the combo's rank (57th percentile) reveals a clear mismatch. The processor is more than capable of feeding the GPU data, but the integrated nature of the graphics solution creates a bottleneck. The benchmark results indicate that the system is well-balanced at lower settings, but the gap between the CPU and GPU's potential becomes apparent at higher loads. This combo reflects the progress of integrated graphics, but it is not yet a top-tier solution for the most demanding simulation games on the market.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this system depends heavily on the user's resolution and preference for visual fidelity. The data shows a clear trade-off between smoothness and detail. For a target of 60 FPS or higher, the recommended settings are as follows.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation. It achieves an average of 86 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target, and provides a significant visual upgrade over the Low preset, which runs at 111 FPS. The High preset drops to 65 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom for complex scenes with dense clouds or large airports. The Ultra preset, at 62 FPS, is borderline and may dip below 60 FPS in demanding situations.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is again the best balance. It produces an average of 69 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS, providing a mostly smooth experience. The High preset drops to 52 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target and may feel less fluid. The Low preset at 89 FPS is very smooth but sacrifices too much visual detail.

At 3840x2160, the choices are more constrained. The Low preset, with an average of 66 FPS, is the only setting that reliably hits the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset averages 51 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a simulator where smooth panning is important. The High and Ultra presets, at 39 and 37 FPS respectively, are too slow for a comfortable experience.

The data indicates that the Medium preset is the "sweet spot" for this hardware, offering a balanced experience across all resolutions. Users with a 1080p or 1440p monitor should prioritize this setting. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only viable option for maintaining a smooth frame rate. The minimum FPS data for the Medium preset (73 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K) suggests that the Medium preset provides a stable frame time, which is crucial for a game like a flight simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of the system's performance across different configurations. The following breakdown details the exact average frame rates (and where available, min/max) for each setting and resolution.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 111 FPS average.
• Medium: 86 FPS average (min 73, max 99).
• High: 65 FPS average.
• Ultra: 62 FPS average.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 89 FPS average.
• Medium: 69 FPS average (min 59, max 80).
• High: 52 FPS average.
• Ultra: 50 FPS average.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 66 FPS average.
• Medium: 51 FPS average (min 44, max 59).
• High: 39 FPS average.
• Ultra: 37 FPS average.

The data shows a consistent hierarchy of performance, with the Low preset always being the fastest and the Ultra preset the slowest at any given resolution. The differences between the presets are substantial. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 49 FPS. At 1440p, this difference is 39 FPS, and at 4K, it narrows to 29 FPS. This narrowing gap at higher resolutions is a classic indicator of a GPU bottleneck, where the resolution's pixel count becomes the limiting factor, reducing the relative impact of the quality preset.

The presence of min/max FPS data for the Medium preset only provides insight into frame time consistency. At all three resolutions, the minimum FPS is significantly lower than the average, indicating there are occasional frame hitches. For example, at 4K Medium, the average is 51 FPS, but the minimum drops to 44 FPS, a 14% deviation. This suggests that while the average is playable, the system can stutter during complex scenes. The data confirms that the Medium preset offers the best compromise between average performance and visual quality, but users should be aware of these potential dips.

Resolution Scaling

The data provides a clear picture of how performance scales with resolution, offering insights into the system's primary bottleneck. The transition from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K reveals a predictable pattern of frame rate decline, but the rate of decline is telling.

At the Medium preset, the average FPS drops from 86 at 1080p, to 69 at 1440p, and finally to 51 at 4K. This represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 26% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 41%. This is a significant decrease, but not as steep as one might expect from a purely pixel-bound scenario, which suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor.

At the Low preset, the scaling is slightly different. The average FPS drops from 111 at 1080p, to 89 at 1440p, and 66 at 4K. This is a 20% drop to 1440p and a 26% drop to 4K, mirroring the Medium preset's relative scaling. This consistency across presets indicates that the resolution itself is the primary driver of the FPS changes, and the settings have a similar absolute cost at each resolution.

The data strongly implies that the AMD Radeon 8060S is the limiting component. When moving from 1080p to 4K, the pixel count quadruples. If the system were CPU-bound, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively constant across resolutions, as the CPU's workload is independent of resolution. However, the data shows a clear and substantial drop in FPS with increasing resolution, which is the definitive signature of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU is capable of maintaining its end of the bargain, but the GPU cannot render the increased number of pixels at the same speed. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the FPS difference between the Low and Ultra presets narrows at 4K; at 1080p the gap is 49 FPS, but at 4K it is only 29 FPS, because the GPU is so saturated with pixel work that the quality settings have less relative impact.