Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT lands at rank 2058 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-mid tier of the database. The pairing sits at roughly the 31st percentile of all tested configurations, meaning a substantial majority of systems deliver higher average frame rates in this simulation title. The data indicates a workable but not exceptional setup, with the GPU clearly serving as the primary constraint in most scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2058 out of 2996 tested combinations places this system in the bottom third of the field. In practical terms, this means that for every three tested configurations, roughly two will outperform this pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator's demanding flight simulation workload. The ranking reflects the inherent balance between the two components: the CPU is a strong performer in absolute terms, but the GPU's modest specifications cap the overall experience.

The CPU itself, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, achieves an 85th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database. This is a solid result, placing it comfortably above the median processor. Its average benchmark score of 36938 puts it in close competition with several notable rivals: the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945, a delta of 0 percent; the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, a delta of -0.2 percent; the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, a delta of -0.4 percent; and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, a delta of -0.5 percent. The spread between the Core Ultra 5 225 and these rivals is remarkably tight, all within half a percent of each other. Benchmark results indicate this processor trades blows with last-generation mid-range and even some high-end parts, making it a capable foundation for gaming.

The GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT, holds a 70th percentile ranking against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24442. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 24277 (delta of 0.7 percent), the Intel Arc A350M at 24647 (delta of -0.8 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti at 24236 (delta of 0.8 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER at 24170 (delta of 1.1 percent). The RX 6600 XT sits in a peculiar neighborhood — it is within a percentage point of a modern entry-level card and a decade-old flagship, yet also close to a high-end card from two generations ago. This suggests the GPU's performance profile is uneven across different workloads, and its standing in this game depends heavily on how Microsoft Flight Simulator utilizes its architecture.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The GPU packs 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, alongside 32 ray tracing cores. Its compute capabilities include 10.60 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 21.21 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The card operates at a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz.

Memory configuration is a critical factor here. The RX 6600 XT comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data, this 8 GB capacity and 256 GB/s bandwidth become significant constraints. The game's high-resolution textures and detailed environments can pressure this memory subsystem, and the measured frame rates suggest the GPU frequently runs into these limits.

The GPU's pixel rate is 165.7 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 331.4 GTexel/s, figures that are modest by modern standards. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it has the API feature set to handle the game's rendering requirements. However, the underlying hardware throughput is what limits performance in practice.

The RX 6600 XT's percentile rank of 70 against all GPUs indicates it outperforms the majority of graphics cards in general benchmarks. Yet in Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the data shows the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings. The gap between the GPU's general benchmark standing and its in-game performance highlights how simulation titles with heavy draw distances and complex geometry can be particularly demanding on memory bandwidth and fill rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The processor includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The CPU's 85th percentile ranking against all processors reflects strong single-thread and multi-thread capabilities. Its Cinebench scores are indicative: Cinebench R15 multicore reaches 2609 and singlecore hits 368; Cinebench R20 multicore scores 6317 and singlecore 891; Cinebench R23 multicore achieves 25891 and singlecore 3655. PassMark results further illustrate its strengths, with a multithread score of 30459, a single-thread score of 4412, and specialized tests like floating point math at 92038 and integer math at 65345.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation physics, flight model calculations, and AI traffic management, which are heavily single-threaded in nature. The Core Ultra 5 225's strong single-core performance, evidenced by its 3655 Cinebench R23 single-core score, ensures the simulation logic remains fluid. However, the processor's 10 threads without hyper-threading means multi-threaded workloads are handled by physical cores only, which is generally sufficient for this game.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 36938 places it in a dead heat with its nearest rivals, all within 0.5 percent. This tight clustering suggests that swapping between these CPUs would yield negligible differences in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game's frame rate is more dependent on GPU throughput and memory bandwidth at the tested settings. The processor's 65 W TDP and efficient 3 nm process mean it runs cool and leaves headroom for GPU-bound scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest tested resolution, the average frame rates range from 101 FPS at Low settings down to 56 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset delivers 78 FPS with a minimum of 66 and maximum of 90. High settings produce 59 FPS. This resolution shows the system can handle the game smoothly at lower presets, with Low and Medium both exceeding the 60 FPS threshold that many players target.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop noticeably. Low settings yield 81 FPS, Medium produces 63 FPS with a min of 54 and max of 73, High falls to 47 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 45 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 18 FPS decline, while the step from Medium to High is a 16 FPS decline. The gap between High and Ultra is just 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end of the settings scale.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher presets. Low settings achieve 60 FPS, Medium drops to 47 FPS with a min of 40 and max of 54, High falls to 35 FPS, and Ultra slumps to 33 FPS. Only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS bar at 4K, and even Medium falls below it. The data shows a steep cliff between Low and Medium at this resolution, with a 13 FPS drop, followed by smaller declines at High and Ultra.

The frame time consistency, where measured, shows reasonable behavior. At 1080p Medium, the range from 66 to 90 FPS indicates some variance but no catastrophic stuttering. At 1440p Medium, the 54 to 73 FPS range is similar. At 4K Medium, the 40 to 54 FPS range suggests the system is under significant load, with frame times becoming less predictable.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. At Low settings, the average FPS progresses from 101 at 1080p, to 81 at 1440p, to 60 at 4K. This represents a 20 percent drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 26 percent drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is relatively smooth, indicating the GPU can handle the increasing pixel count without hitting a hard wall.

At Medium settings, the progression is 78 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 19 percent and 25 percent respectively, very similar to the Low preset scaling. This consistency suggests the limiting factor is purely pixel throughput rather than any specific resource exhaustion.

High settings tell a different story. The progression goes from 59 FPS at 1080p, to 47 FPS at 1440p, to 35 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 20 percent, but the drop from 1440p to 4K is 26 percent, slightly steeper. This hints that at higher settings, the increased texture detail and shadow complexity begin to tax the 8 GB VRAM more heavily at 4K.

Ultra settings exhibit the worst scaling behavior. The averages are 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 20 percent, but from 1440p to 4K it's 27 percent. The Ultra preset, with its maximum texture quality and draw distance, pushes the GPU to its limits at 4K, resulting in a sub-30 percent scaling efficiency from 1440p to 4K.

The pattern across all settings points to the GPU as the limiting component. The CPU's strong single-thread performance ensures that even at 1080p Low, where the system achieves 101 FPS, the processor is not the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see similar frame rates across resolutions at the same settings, but instead the FPS scales inversely with pixel count. This is classic GPU-bound behavior.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset at 78 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, with the frame rate well above the 60 FPS target and the minimum of 66 FPS ensuring no drops below that threshold. Low at 101 FPS is viable for competitive play or maximum fluidity, while High at 59 FPS and Ultra at 56 FPS both fall just short of 60 FPS, making them less desirable.

For 2560x1440, Medium at 63 FPS is the recommended choice, as it maintains an average above 60 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS. Low at 81 FPS provides additional headroom for those who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. High at 47 FPS and Ultra at 45 FPS are both below 50 FPS, which may feel less responsive in a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is important. The 2 FPS difference between High and Ultra at this resolution makes Ultra a questionable trade-off for the extra visual load.

At 3840x2160, only Low at 60 FPS achieves the 60 FPS target, making it the sole playable preset for smooth performance. Medium at 47 FPS is a compromise for those willing to accept a lower frame rate for better visuals, with a minimum of 40 FPS that might cause noticeable stutters in dense scenery. High at 35 FPS and Ultra at 33 FPS are too low for a satisfying experience in this title, where maintaining situational awareness during flight is critical.

The data suggests that users with this combo should prioritize the Medium preset across most resolutions, as it delivers the most consistent performance without sacrificing the visual detail that makes Microsoft Flight Simulator immersive. At 4K, dropping to Low is necessary for smooth operation, while at 1080p and 1440p, Medium offers the sweet spot. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 256 GB/s bandwidth are the constraining factors at higher settings, so users should expect to dial back texture quality and draw distance on larger displays.