Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents an unusual hardware challenge: it is a simulator that can be as demanding on the processor as it is on the graphics card, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 reveals a fascinating bottleneck dynamic. The combination of a mobile-focused, 28-watt processor with a flagship desktop GPU creates a system where the performance ceiling is rarely defined by the graphics hardware alone, making the resolution scaling behavior particularly telling. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings to understand which component is truly in the driver's seat.

Resolution Scaling

The most revealing metric in this dataset is how frame rates shift when moving from 1080p to 4K. At the High preset, the average FPS drops from 97 at 1920x1080 to 78 at 2560x1440, and finally to 58 at 3840x2160. This represents a 40% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K, which is a substantial scaling penalty. However, the pattern is not uniform across all settings, and that inconsistency tells the real story about the system's limiting factors.

Examining the Ultra preset reveals a similar but slightly different trajectory: 92 FPS at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K here is 40%, nearly identical to the High preset. This consistency across presets suggests that the scaling behavior is largely resolution-driven rather than setting-driven, which points toward a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. The RTX 4090, with its 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth, is being pushed harder as pixel count increases, and the frame rate drops accordingly.

The Low preset offers the clearest insight into the CPU's limitations. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 166 FPS, which drops to 133 at 1440p and 98 at 4K. The relative drop from 1080p to 1440p is 20%, and from 1440p to 4K is another 26%. While these are still significant reductions, the fact that the system can reach 166 FPS at 1080p Low indicates that the processor is capable of feeding frames at a high rate when the GPU has less work to do. The Core Ultra 5 135H, with its 14 cores and 18 threads, shows it can handle the simulation's CPU overhead at lower graphical loads.

What is particularly interesting is the gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the difference is 74 FPS (166 vs 92), while at 4K, the difference narrows to 43 FPS (98 vs 55). This narrowing gap suggests that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, and the CPU's ability to push higher frame rates at Low settings is increasingly masked by the GPU's rendering workload. The data implies that at 4K, even the RTX 4090 is struggling to maintain high frame rates in this simulator, and the CPU is no longer the limiting factor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is a monster of a graphics card, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process from TSMC. Its specifications are staggering: 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, paired with 128 ray tracing cores and 512 tensor cores. The boost clock of 2520 MHz and a base clock of 2235 MHz provide the raw compute power, while the 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus delivers 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the incredibly detailed terrain, aircraft models, and dynamic weather systems. The data shows that the RTX 4090 is capable of delivering playable frame rates at all tested resolutions and settings, with the lowest average being 55 FPS at 4K Ultra. The VRAM capacity is particularly relevant here, as Flight Simulator is known for loading massive amounts of texture data. The 24 GB buffer means there is likely no texture swapping or memory pressure, even at 4K Ultra, allowing the card to operate at its full potential.

The clock speeds play a significant role in the performance deltas between settings. At 4K, the difference between Low (98 FPS) and High (58 FPS) is 40 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra (55 FPS) is a mere 3 FPS. This suggests that the High to Ultra jump at 4K is not heavily taxing the GPU's compute units, but rather hitting some other limit, possibly related to the simulation's draw calls or physics calculations. The RTX 4090's 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than sufficient for the graphical load, but the game's engine overhead may be the real constraint.

Comparing to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database, the RTX 4090's average benchmark score of 60347 places it just 0% away from the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60326) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60140). These are workstation-class cards, and the RTX 4090's margin over them is slim in synthetic tests, yet in actual gaming workloads, the architecture's strengths shine through. The data for this game confirms that the GPU is rarely the sole bottleneck, even at 4K Ultra, where it still manages 55 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 614th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 20.5% of all systems tested. This is a surprisingly low rank for such a powerful GPU, and the data suggests that the CPU is dragging down the overall performance relative to what the RTX 4090 could achieve with a stronger processor.

The Core Ultra 5 135H is a mobile chip with a 28-watt TDP, designed for laptops and compact systems. Its benchmark scores show it is competitive with desktop processors from a few generations ago: it trails the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X by a mere 0.1% in average benchmark score, and it is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT. However, its average benchmark score of 29093 places it in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, which is respectable but far from flagship territory.

The rank of 614 out of 2996 combos means that many other systems, likely with higher-end desktop CPUs, achieve better frame rates in this game. The RTX 4090 is capable of much higher performance, as evidenced by its 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs, but the CPU's limitations in Flight Simulator's CPU-intensive simulation loops hold the combo back. This is particularly evident at lower resolutions, where the CPU's role is more pronounced.

The data indicates that this combo is well-balanced for 4K gaming, where the GPU is the primary bottleneck, but it leaves performance on the table at 1080p and 1440p. The rank suggests that users with this pairing should prioritize higher resolutions to maximize the GPU's utilization, rather than chasing high refresh rates at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 166, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to Ultra at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 98 FPS, while Ultra averages 55 FPS, making Low 78% faster in this configuration.

Q: Is the RTX 4090 the limiting component at 1080p Ultra?

A: No, the data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the system achieves 92 FPS, which is 74 FPS lower than the 166 FPS at 1080p Low, indicating the CPU's performance ceiling is reached before the GPU's full potential is used.

Q: What is the frame rate range for Medium settings at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 104, with a minimum of 88 and a maximum of 119.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested systems in this game?

A: This combo ranks 614th out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the top 20.5% of all systems tested.

Q: Does the GPU's 24 GB VRAM make a difference in this game?

A: While the 24 GB of GDDR6X memory provides ample capacity for Flight Simulator's textures, the benchmark data does not show any frame time inconsistencies that would indicate VRAM limitations, suggesting the capacity is sufficient for the tested settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides average FPS for 12 distinct configurations, spanning three resolutions and four quality presets. Here is the complete breakdown:

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system achieves:

• Low: 98 FPS average
• Medium: 77 FPS average, with a minimum of 65 and maximum of 88
• High: 58 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the performance is:

• Low: 133 FPS average
• Medium: 104 FPS average, with a minimum of 88 and maximum of 119
• High: 78 FPS average
• Ultra: 74 FPS average

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the frame rates are:

• Low: 166 FPS average
• Medium: 129 FPS average, with a minimum of 109 and maximum of 148
• High: 97 FPS average
• Ultra: 92 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only one with reported minimum and maximum values, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range is 109 to 148 FPS, a 39 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 88 to 119, a 31 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 65 to 88, a 23 FPS spread. This tightening range as resolution increases further confirms that the GPU becomes the dominant factor at higher resolutions, reducing the variance caused by CPU-side simulation tasks.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a 14-core, 18-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 7 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 28-watt TDP that classifies it as a mobile chip. Its cache hierarchy includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the complex simulation logic, including flight physics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The game is known for being CPU-intensive, and the data reflects this. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 166 FPS, which is a strong result, but the CPU's limitations become apparent when comparing to higher settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 74 FPS, which is a significant drop that cannot be attributed solely to GPU load.

The CPU's benchmark scores provide context for its performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11875.5 and single-core score of 1700 indicate a capable processor, but not a top-tier one. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 22422 and single-thread score of 3521 place it in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, which is solid but leaves headroom for improvement when paired with a flagship GPU.

The nearest rivals to this CPU include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, which scores 0.1% higher on average, and the Intel Core i5-13500HX, which scores 0.6% higher. These comparisons suggest that the Core Ultra 5 135H is competitive with mid-range desktop and high-end mobile processors, but it is not in the same league as flagship desktop CPUs that would better complement the RTX 4090.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance on which settings preset offers the best experience for this combination. The key trade-off is between visual quality and frame rate, and the resolution plays a significant role in determining the optimal preset.

For 4K gaming, the Ultra preset at 55 FPS is playable but not ideal for a smooth experience. The High preset at 58 FPS offers a marginal improvement, while the Medium preset at 77 FPS provides a much more comfortable margin above 60 FPS. Given that the visual difference between High and Ultra in Flight Simulator is often subtle, the Medium preset at 4K appears to be the sweet spot, delivering 77 FPS with a minimum of 65 FPS, ensuring no major frame drops below playable levels.

At 1440p, the situation improves significantly. The Ultra preset at 74 FPS is perfectly playable and offers the best visual fidelity. The High preset at 78 FPS is nearly identical in performance, suggesting that the GPU has headroom at this resolution. For users with high-refresh-rate monitors, the Medium preset at 104 FPS provides a significant boost in smoothness without a major visual sacrifice.

For 1080p, the recommendation depends on the display's refresh rate. The Ultra preset at 92 FPS is excellent for 60Hz displays and suitable for 144Hz displays. The High preset at 97 FPS is nearly identical. The Medium preset at 129 FPS is the best choice for 144Hz displays, while the Low preset at 166 FPS is only necessary for 165Hz or 240Hz displays, though the visual quality loss may not be worth the frame rate gain.

Overall, the data suggests that the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all resolutions, particularly at 4K where it provides a 40% improvement over Ultra. The High preset is a close second, but the Medium preset's lower minimum frame rates make it the safer choice for consistent performance.