Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces a set of results that clearly illustrate where the bottlenecks lie. The data shows a system that is capable of solid performance at mainstream resolutions, but which requires careful settings management to maintain playable frame rates at 4K. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and presets, contextualizes the hardware's standing against its nearest rivals, and offers practical guidance based solely on the provided benchmark data.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate achievable with this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded at 1920x1080 is 127, achieved with the Low settings preset. The Medium preset delivers 99 FPS, while High and Ultra produce 74 and 71 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the combo perform at 1440p compared to 1080p?

A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops across all settings. The Low preset yields 102 FPS, Medium delivers 79 FPS, High produces 60 FPS, and Ultra falls to 57 FPS. This represents a performance reduction of roughly 20-25% compared to the 1080p results for each corresponding setting.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this hardware configuration?

A: At 3840x2160, the results are mixed. The Low preset manages an average of 75 FPS, and the Medium preset achieves 59 FPS. However, the High preset drops to 44 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 42 FPS, indicating that 4K is only smooth on lower graphical presets.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in the database?

A: The combo ranks 1304 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 43rd percentile of all tested combos, suggesting it is a mid-pack performer for this specific game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, has a nearly identical average score of 36945, showing a 0% delta. Other rivals like the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 are also within 0.4% of its performance.

Q: What is the frame time variance on the Medium preset?

A: The data provides min and max FPS only for the Medium preset. At 1080p, the range is from 84 to 113 FPS. At 1440p, it is from 68 to 91 FPS. At 4K, the range narrows to 50 to 67 FPS, indicating a tighter but lower frame delivery window as resolution increases.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the sole graphics processor in this configuration, and its specifications dictate the upper bounds of visual fidelity. The GPU is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture and features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The card's base clock is 2150 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. This memory capacity and bandwidth are critical for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data.

The benchmark data shows that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings. The pattern of frame rates dropping as resolution increases is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. For instance, at 1080p Ultra, the average is 71 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it falls to 42 FPS. This 41% reduction in performance directly correlates with the 4x increase in pixel count, a workload that falls squarely on the GPU's shading units, ROPs, and memory subsystem. The RX 6750 XT's 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs are tasked with rasterizing the complex scenes, and the data suggests they are overwhelmed at 4K with high settings.

In contrast, the CPU's role appears less dominant at higher resolutions. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225, with its 10 cores and 10 threads, has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz and a large 20 MB L3 cache. Synthetic benchmarks show it performs at the 85th percentile against all CPUs. However, the measured FPS data in this game indicates that even with the powerful CPU, the frame rate is capped by the GPU's capabilities. The gap between the 1080p Low score of 127 FPS and the 4K Low score of 75 FPS highlights this. The CPU can feed frames quickly at 1080p, but the GPU cannot maintain that throughput when the pixel workload increases. This suggests that for this specific title, the RX 6750 XT is the component that determines the playable experience.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. This behavior is typical of a GPU-limited scenario, where the rendering resolution has a direct impact on the frame rate. The data shows that the percentage drop in performance is not linear but is more pronounced at higher settings where the GPU is already under heavy load.

At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 127 at 1080p to 102 at 1440p, a 19.7% decrease. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the score drops from 102 to 75, a 26.5% decrease. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 40.9%. This scaling suggests that even at Low settings, the GPU is still the primary bottleneck, as the workload increases with pixel count.

The scaling becomes even more dramatic at the Ultra preset. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 71 FPS. This falls to 57 FPS at 1440p, a 19.7% drop, and then to 42 FPS at 4K, a 26.3% drop from 1440p. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 40.8%. This consistency in the percentage drop across settings indicates that the limiting factor is not the CPU or memory bandwidth, but the raw pixel-pushing capability of the RX 6750 XT.

The data strongly suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this configuration. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a plateau in frame rates as resolution increases, because the CPU would be unable to provide more frames regardless of the GPU load. Instead, the frame rates continue to fall steadily with resolution, indicating that the GPU is consistently saturated. The 4K Medium preset, with its min and max FPS of 50 and 67, shows a range that is proportionally similar to the 1080p Medium range of 84 to 113 FPS, further confirming that the scaling is driven by resolution, not by CPU frame generation limits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. The results are presented as average FPS, with min and max FPS available for the Medium preset at each resolution.

At 1920x1080, the system performs admirably. The Low preset delivers an average of 127 FPS, which is highly fluid. The Medium preset averages 99 FPS, with a frame time range spanning from 84 to 113 FPS. The High preset averages 74 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 71 FPS. This shows that at 1080p, the combo can handle even the most demanding presets, staying above the 60 FPS threshold for a smooth experience. The small difference between High and Ultra at this resolution, just 3 FPS, suggests that the extra graphical features in the Ultra preset are not heavily taxing the GPU at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance takes a noticeable step down. The Low preset averages 102 FPS, which is still very smooth. The Medium preset averages 79 FPS, with a range of 68 to 91 FPS. The High preset produces an average of 60 FPS, which is borderline for a simulation title. The Ultra preset averages 57 FPS, dipping below the ideal 60 FPS mark. This resolution represents the sweet spot for this hardware, as it offers a good balance between visual fidelity and playability, with only the Ultra preset falling slightly short of the 60 FPS target.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overburdened by the higher settings. The Low preset averages 75 FPS, which is playable. The Medium preset averages 59 FPS, with a range of 50 to 67 FPS, which is a playable but not perfectly smooth experience. The High preset drops to an average of 44 FPS, which is not ideal for a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is important. The Ultra preset averages 42 FPS, which is a significant compromise. The data clearly shows that 4K gaming is only viable with the Low or Medium presets on this hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1304 out of 2996 total combos. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the performance spectrum, indicating that while it is not a top-tier setup, it is also far from being an entry-level one. The rank is a composite measure that reflects the combo's overall capability in this specific game, taking into account all the measured FPS data points.

To contextualize this rank, we can look at the individual components' standings. The CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, has a percentile rank of 85 against all CPUs, meaning it is faster than 85% of all processors in the database. Its average benchmark score is 36938. Its nearest rivals are very closely matched: the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an average score of 36945 (a 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018 (a -0.2% delta), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093 (a -0.4% delta). This indicates that the CPU is a solid performer, but its raw power is not enough to compensate for the GPU's limitations in this game.

The GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT, has a percentile rank of 71 against all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 26011. Its nearest rivals are all older or mobile parts, such as the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.5% delta), the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.6% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (1.1% delta). This shows that the GPU is a competent mid-range card, but it is not a high-end performer. The combination of a strong CPU with a mid-range GPU results in a combo rank that is lower than the CPU's individual percentile, highlighting that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The combo's rank of 1304 out of 2996 suggests that many other configurations with stronger GPUs will outperform it, especially at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware combination depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's tolerance for frame rate dips. The data provides a clear guide for achieving the best experience without sacrificing playability.

For 1920x1080 displays, the Ultra preset is the recommended choice. The average FPS of 71 is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold, and the game will look its best. The High preset offers a negligible performance gain of only 3 FPS, so it is not worth the visual downgrade. The Medium and Low presets are unnecessary at this resolution, as the hardware has enough headroom to run the highest settings smoothly.

For 2560x1440 displays, the High preset is the best balance. It delivers an average of exactly 60 FPS, which is the target for a smooth experience in a simulation title. The Ultra preset falls to 57 FPS, which is a minor sacrifice but may be acceptable to some users who prioritize visual quality over a few frames per second. The Medium preset, at 79 FPS, provides a significant performance buffer, but the visual quality reduction is more noticeable. Given the data, High is the sweet spot, offering a good balance between fidelity and fluidity.

For 3840x2160 displays, the choices are more constrained. The Ultra and High presets are not recommended, as their average FPS of 42 and 44 respectively fall well below the playable threshold. The Medium preset, with an average of 59 FPS and a range of 50 to 67, is the highest setting that provides a mostly consistent experience, though it will dip below 60 FPS at times. The Low preset, at 75 FPS, is the safest choice for a consistently smooth experience, but it requires a significant reduction in visual quality. The recommendation is to use the Medium preset at 4K, as it offers the best visual experience while maintaining an average frame rate that is just at the edge of playability. Users who prioritize smoothness over visuals should select the Low preset.