Microsoft Flight Simulator

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H is a 14-core, 18-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 7 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 28 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory support is DDR5, dual-channel, with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU scores 11,875.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,700 in single-core. In Passmark, it achieves 22,422 in multithread and 3,521 in single-thread. These scores place the CPU at the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29,093. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 5 135H is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (deltaPct -0.1) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (deltaPct 0.5). It trails the Intel Core i5-13500HX by 0.6% and the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 by 0.5%. This means the CPU's multi-threaded capability is solid for a mobile part, but not class-leading; it sits in a competitive mid-range band.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant because the game's simulation logic—flight physics, weather, and AI traffic—is heavily single-thread dependent. The 3.60 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clocks are moderate, and the single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1,700 suggests adequate but not exceptional per-core performance. The 14 cores and 18 threads provide headroom for background tasks and multi-threaded game subsystems, but the game's frame pacing will often hinge on that single-thread performance. The 18 MB L3 cache is shared, which helps with data locality for the game's large world-streaming datasets.

The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 173 FPS, which indicates the CPU can feed the GPU efficiently when the load is light. However, at 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 57, suggesting that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions—the GPU takes over. The CPU's percentile rank of 81 versus the GPU's percentile rank of 84 (as detailed later) means both components are in a similar tier, but the game's scaling behavior reveals which one limits performance at each setting.

# GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture GPU built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a chip designated GB203 and 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. It has 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 82 RT cores, and 328 tensor cores. The GPU's base clock is 990 MHz and boost clock is 1515 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). It features 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 896.0 GB/s. The pixel rate is 169.7 GPixel/s, texture rate is 496.9 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 31.80 TFLOPS. The TDP is 95 W, and it uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 5090 Mobile scores 5,871 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 201,834 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 198,405 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its Passmark G3D score is 30,034, and GPU compute is 13,401. These results place the GPU at the 84th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 45,152. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT (deltaPct -0.5) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (deltaPct 0.8), meaning the mobile 5090 is roughly on par with a desktop RTX 4070 Ti in average score, though the Intel Arc A730M (deltaPct -1) and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (deltaPct -1.8) are slightly behind.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 24 GB VRAM is ample for the game's high-resolution textures and large scenery packs, preventing texture swapping at 4K. The 896.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures fast data transfer for streaming terrain. The boost clock of 1515 MHz is modest for a high-end GPU, but the architecture's efficiency compensates. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average is 57 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target, while at 4K High it hits 60 FPS exactly. At 1080p Low, the GPU achieves 173 FPS, indicating it is not the limiting factor at lower settings.

The GPU's percentile rank of 84 is slightly higher than the CPU's 81, suggesting that in a balanced system, the GPU has a small edge in raw compute capability. However, the game's bottleneck shifts based on settings: at 1080p and Low, the CPU likely limits performance because the GPU is underutilized; at 4K and Ultra, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, as evidenced by the FPS dropping to 57 from 173 at 1080p Low. The 24 GB VRAM ensures that even at 4K Ultra, there is no memory capacity limit, so the FPS drop is purely compute-bound.

# FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 109 FPS, with a minimum of 92 FPS and a maximum of 125 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has an average benchmark score of 29,093, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X's score of 29,123. This makes the two effectively equal in average performance.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile is at the 84th percentile among all GPUs, based on its average benchmark score of 45,152.

Q: What is the maximum FPS recorded at 1080p Ultra settings?

A: The data shows an average FPS of 96 at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, but no minimum or maximum FPS values were provided for that specific configuration.

Q: Does the combo rank high in this game compared to other tested combos?

A: The combo ranks 784 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 21% of all combos tested.

Q: What is the boost clock of the CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while its base clock is 3.60 GHz.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this CPU-GPU combo spans three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The data is consistent and shows clear scaling patterns.

At 1920x1080, the lowest settings yield the highest FPS. Low settings produce an average of 173 FPS. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 135 FPS, with a minimum of 114 and maximum of 155. High settings bring the average down to 101 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 96 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 77 FPS, a 44.5% reduction, which indicates that the GPU is being increasingly stressed as settings rise, but the CPU still has headroom at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings average 139 FPS, a 34 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 109 FPS, with a minimum of 92 and maximum of 125. High settings average 82 FPS, and Ultra settings average 78 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 61 FPS, or 43.9%, similar to the 1080p percentage drop. This suggests the scaling is relatively consistent.

At 3840x2160, the FPS drops significantly. Low settings average 103 FPS, which is still playable but 70 FPS lower than 1080p Low. Medium settings average 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 and maximum of 92. High settings average exactly 60 FPS, which is a common target for smooth gameplay. Ultra settings average 57 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The drop from Low to Ultra at 4K is 46 FPS, or 44.7%, again consistent with the other resolutions.

Notably, the Medium settings at each resolution include min and max FPS values, allowing for frame time analysis. At 1080p Medium, the range is 114-155 FPS, a spread of 41 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 92-125 FPS, a spread of 33 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 68-92 FPS, a spread of 24 FPS. This narrowing of the range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes more consistently the bottleneck, reducing frame time variance.

# How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific pairing of Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile ranks 784 out of 3,714 combos. This places the combo in the 78.9th percentile of all tested combos, meaning roughly 79% of combos perform worse and 21% perform better. The rank is based on the measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings, weighted by the data available.

The CPU's percentile rank of 81 and GPU's percentile rank of 84 are close, but the combo's overall rank of 784 out of 3,714 is slightly lower than either component's individual percentile would suggest. This is because Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly demanding on both components, and the game's optimization can cause bottlenecks that lower the combined score relative to other games. The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, has a nearly identical average benchmark score (deltaPct -0.1), but the actual in-game performance may differ due to architecture-specific behaviors.

The rank of 784 indicates that this is a high-performing combo, but not top-tier. The top combos likely use higher-end desktop CPUs with higher boost clocks and more cache, which would benefit the game's single-thread dependency. The RTX 5090 Mobile's GPU performance is solid, but the CPU's 4.60 GHz boost clock is a limiting factor when compared to desktop parts that can exceed 5 GHz.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

For 1920x1080, all settings presets are playable. Low settings at 173 FPS provide a very smooth experience, but Ultra at 96 FPS is still well above the 60 FPS threshold. The data suggests that Ultra at 1080p is the best choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness, as the 96 FPS average leaves significant headroom above 60 FPS. If the user prefers higher frame rates, High at 101 FPS offers a marginal improvement over Ultra with slightly lower visual quality.

At 2560x1440, Ultra settings average 78 FPS, which is above 60 FPS and provides a good experience. High settings at 82 FPS are very close to Ultra, so the visual difference may be minimal. Medium at 109 FPS is the best option for users prioritizing frame rate over maxed visuals. Low at 139 FPS is unnecessary unless the user has a high refresh rate monitor and wants to maximize FPS.

At 3840x2160, the data reveals a critical threshold. Ultra settings average 57 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS standard for smooth gameplay. High settings average exactly 60 FPS, making it the recommended preset for 4K if the user wants to maintain 60 FPS. Medium at 80 FPS provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and is the best choice for consistent frame pacing, with a minimum of 68 FPS. Low at 103 FPS is the smoothest option but sacrifices significant visual quality.

The data indicates that the sweet spot for this combo is High settings at 4K or Ultra at 1440p, as both achieve 60 FPS or better. For 1080p, Ultra is the best balance of visuals and performance. The Medium preset's min FPS values (68 at 4K, 92 at 1440p, 114 at 1080p) show that it provides the most stable frame delivery, making it a safe choice for users who prioritize consistency over absolute visual quality.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component at each stage. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 173 at 1080p to 139 at 1440p (a 19.7% drop) to 103 at 4K (a 40.5% drop from 1080p). At Medium settings, the drop is 135 to 109 (19.3%) to 80 (40.7%). At High settings, it is 101 to 82 (18.8%) to 60 (40.6%). At Ultra settings, it is 96 to 78 (18.8%) to 57 (40.6%).

The percentage drops are remarkably consistent across all settings presets, with the 1080p to 1440p drop being approximately 19% and the 1080p to 4K drop being approximately 40.5%. This consistency suggests that the scaling is primarily GPU-bound, as the resolution increase directly correlates with pixel count. The 1440p resolution has 78% more pixels than 1080p, and the 19% FPS drop is less than the pixel increase, indicating some efficiency. The 4K resolution has 400% more pixels than 1080p, but the FPS drop is only 40.5%, showing that the GPU has enough bandwidth and compute to handle the load without a linear penalty.

The fact that the FPS drops are similar across Low and Ultra settings (40.5% vs 40.6% from 1080p to 4K) is telling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS drop to be less severe at higher settings (where the GPU is more stressed) and more severe at lower settings (where the CPU is more limiting). The data shows no such divergence, which indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor even at Low settings and 1080p. The CPU's 14 cores and 18 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at all measured configurations.

However, the absolute FPS numbers tell a different story at the extremes. At 1080p Low, 173 FPS is far above the GPU's ability to render frames at higher resolutions, suggesting the CPU is capable of driving the GPU to its limit. At 4K Ultra, 57 FPS is below 60, and the GPU is clearly maxed out. The limiting component transitions from CPU-bound at 1080p Low (where the GPU has headroom) to GPU-bound at 4K Ultra (where the GPU is saturated). The data shows the crossover point is around 1440p High, where the FPS is 82, and the GPU starts to become the primary limiter.