Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a demanding workload that stresses both the CPU and GPU depending on resolution and settings. The benchmark data for this combination of an Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and an AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT shows a clear progression of performance as resolution increases, with frame rates dropping from highly playable at 1080p to marginal at 4K Ultra. The measured results indicate that the GPU becomes the dominant limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU's 10 cores and 10 threads provide sufficient headroom at lower settings where frame rates climb well above 100 FPS. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across three resolutions and four quality presets, placing the combo's performance in context against its rank among nearly 3,000 tested combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 produces a dramatic impact on frame rates across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 149 at 1080p to 120 at 1440p, then falls to 88 at 4K — a decline of 41% from 1080p to 4K. This scaling pattern suggests that even at the lowest quality preset, the GPU is progressively more burdened as pixel count quadruples. The drop from 1440p to 4K is particularly steep at 32 FPS, indicating that the RX 7800 XT's rendering throughput becomes the bottleneck when pushing 8.3 million pixels.

At Medium settings, the pattern holds but with slightly different magnitudes. The 1080p average of 116 FPS drops to 93 at 1440p (a 20% reduction) and then to 69 at 4K (a 26% reduction from 1440p). The min FPS values at Medium show similar scaling: 98 at 1080p, 79 at 1440p, and 59 at 4K. These minimums reveal that the frame time consistency degrades alongside average performance, with the 4K minimum falling below the 60 FPS threshold that many flight sim enthusiasts consider essential for smooth panning over terrain.

High settings produce a similar relative decline. The 87 FPS at 1080p drops to 70 at 1440p and then to 52 at 4K. The 4K High result is notable because it falls below 60 FPS, meaning the combination cannot maintain a consistently smooth experience at native 4K with High quality. Ultra settings show the most severe scaling: 83 FPS at 1080p, 67 at 1440p, and 49 at 4K. The Ultra 4K figure represents the worst-case scenario in this dataset, with the frame rate dropping below 50 FPS.

The scaling behavior indicates that the RX 7800 XT is the primary limiter at 4K and even at 1440p with higher presets. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 149 FPS while 4K Ultra only reaches 49 FPS — a 3x difference — suggests that the GPU's 16 GB of VRAM and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the workload, but the raw compute throughput (37.32 TFLOPS FP32) is not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K. The CPU's performance headroom is evident in the 1080p results, where frame rates exceed 80 FPS even at Ultra, indicating that the Core Ultra 5 225's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655) is adequate for the game's simulation logic.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 brings 10 cores and 10 threads to the flight sim workload, running at a 3.30 GHz base clock with a 4.90 GHz boost. With a 65 W TDP and built on TSMC's 3 nm process, this Arrow Lake-S chip delivers strong single-threaded performance that is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator's simulation-heavy engine. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655 and multi-core score of 25891 place this CPU in the 85th percentile among all tested processors, indicating solid overall capability.

Benchmark results show the CPU's average benchmark score of 36938 sits within 0.5% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018, -0.2% delta). The Core Ultra 5 225 trails the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4% and the Core i9-12900T by 0.5%, but these differences are negligible in real-world gaming. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide the memory hierarchy needed to feed the game's asset streaming, while DDR5 dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth supports the data throughput.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is most apparent at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the 149 FPS result shows that the CPU can drive the GPU to high frame rates without becoming a bottleneck. The 10 threads handle the game's weather simulation, physics, and AI traffic without stalling. However, the lack of hyperthreading (10 cores, 10 threads) means there is no extra thread headroom beyond the physical cores, which could matter in complex scenarios with heavy AI or multiplayer traffic.

The PassMark single-thread score of 4412 further confirms the CPU's strength in lightly-threaded workloads. With a PassMark multithread score of 30459, the CPU demonstrates balanced performance across both single and multi-threaded tasks. This profile suits Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on a few main threads for simulation logic while offloading rendering to the GPU. The data suggests that the Core Ultra 5 225 is not the limiting factor at 1080p, but at 4K Ultra, the CPU's influence diminishes as the GPU's rendering load dominates the frame time budget.

FAQ

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

A: The measured average is 70 FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings. This represents a 20% drop from the 87 FPS achieved at 1080p High, indicating that the GPU is beginning to feel the resolution increase but still delivers playable performance.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra result compare to the 1080p Low result?

A: The 4K Ultra average is 49 FPS, while the 1080p Low average is 149 FPS — a 3x difference. This wide gap demonstrates that the RX 7800 XT's compute resources are heavily taxed at 4K with maximum quality, whereas the CPU can easily feed the GPU at 1080p low.

Q: What is the best measured result for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 149 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This suggests that for maximum frame rates, users should prioritize lower quality presets at 1080p, though Medium at 1080p (116 FPS) offers a better balance of quality and speed.

Q: Does the combo hold 60 FPS at 4K on any setting?

A: Yes, at 4K Low the average is 88 FPS, and at 4K Medium the average is 69 FPS. However, at 4K High (52 FPS) and 4K Ultra (49 FPS), the frame rate drops below 60 FPS, making those presets less suitable for smooth gameplay at native 4K.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is within 0.5% of its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945 average (0% delta), the Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018 (-0.2%), and the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093 (-0.4%). These differences are within the margin of error.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 947 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in roughly the 68th percentile. This means it outperforms about two-thirds of all tested combos but is behind the top performers.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT ranks 947 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pair in the upper third of all tested configurations, a respectable position given that the benchmark database includes many high-end combinations with more expensive CPUs and GPUs. The rank reflects the balanced nature of this pairing — neither component is a top-tier performer, but they complement each other well for this simulation title.

The GPU's percentile rank of 51 among all GPUs is notably lower than the CPU's 85th percentile, suggesting that the RX 7800 XT is the weaker link in this pairing. This is consistent with the resolution scaling data, which shows the GPU becoming the bottleneck at 4K. The GPU's average benchmark score of 11627 places it within 1.8% of its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11680, -0.5% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11528, 0.9% delta). These are significantly older or lower-tier cards, which highlights that the RX 7800 XT's synthetic benchmark scores may not fully reflect its gaming capabilities in flight simulation.

The CPU's 85th percentile rank means it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the database, which helps explain why the combo achieves higher frame rates than its GPU-centric rank might suggest. At 1080p, the combo delivers 87 FPS on High and 83 FPS on Ultra, which are strong results for the resolution. At 1440p, the combo remains playable with 70 FPS on High and 67 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results are more marginal, with only Low (88 FPS) and Medium (69 FPS) exceeding 60 FPS.

The rank of 947 suggests that many higher-end combinations (with GPUs like the RTX 4080 or RX 7900 XTX, which are not in this data) would outperform this setup at 4K. However, for users targeting 1080p or 1440p, this combo delivers consistently high frame rates across all quality presets. The data indicates that the combo is best suited for 1440p gaming, where it can maintain above 60 FPS on High and Medium settings, and approach 70 FPS on Ultra.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 60 ray tracing cores. The GPU runs at a 1295 MHz base clock with a 2430 MHz boost clock and a 2124 MHz game clock. Memory consists of 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's 37.32 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 583.2 GTexel/s texture rate are the key compute metrics that drive rendering performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for the game's high-resolution textures and terrain data, even at 4K Ultra, where the game can consume significant memory for photogrammetry and detailed scenery. The 624.1 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming keeps up with the render pipeline, preventing hitches that could cause frame time spikes.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a mixed picture. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4157 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 54228 indicate solid DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance. The PassMark G3D score of 24176 places the GPU in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, which is modest. However, the PassMark DirectX 12 score of 93 and DirectX 11 score of 249 are relatively low, suggesting that synthetic benchmarks may not fully capture the GPU's gaming performance. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 18290 indicates reasonable compute capability.

The GPU's performance in this game is constrained by its raw compute throughput at 4K. The 49 FPS result at 4K Ultra indicates that the 37.32 TFLOPS is insufficient to maintain high frame rates at that resolution with maximum quality. The 233.3 GPixel/s pixel rate and 37.32 TFLOPS FP32 performance are the limiting factors, as the game's heavy use of shader effects and post-processing at Ultra settings demands more compute than the GPU can deliver at 4K. At 1440p and below, the GPU has enough headroom to maintain playable frame rates, with 67 FPS at 1440p Ultra being the weakest result at that resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS values across all resolutions and settings is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves 149 FPS on Low, 116 FPS on Medium (with a min of 98 and max of 133), 87 FPS on High, and 83 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p results show that the CPU and GPU combination is well-balanced at this resolution, with even Ultra settings maintaining above 80 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 66 FPS, indicating that quality settings have a significant but manageable impact at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the results are 120 FPS on Low, 93 FPS on Medium (min 79, max 107), 70 FPS on High, and 67 FPS on Ultra. The 1440p results show a tighter spread between High and Ultra (only 3 FPS difference), suggesting that Ultra settings add minimal additional load over High at this resolution. The drop from Low to Medium is 27 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 23 FPS — both are substantial but expected given the quality differences.

At 3840x2160, the results are 88 FPS on Low, 69 FPS on Medium (min 59, max 79), 52 FPS on High, and 49 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show a dramatic drop-off, with the difference between Low and Ultra reaching 39 FPS. Notably, the Medium preset at 4K has a minimum FPS of 59, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating occasional frame dips even at Medium quality. The High and Ultra presets both fall below 60 FPS average, making them unsuitable for smooth 4K gameplay.

The min FPS data is only available for Medium settings across all resolutions. At 1080p, the min is 98 FPS; at 1440p, it's 79 FPS; at 4K, it's 59 FPS. These minimums show that the combo maintains reasonably consistent frame times at 1080p and 1440p Medium, but at 4K Medium, the min FPS dips below 60, which could cause noticeable stutter during complex scenes such as dense cloud layers or detailed city flyovers.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's preference for visual quality versus frame rate.

For 1080p users, the Medium preset offers the best balance of quality and performance. With an average of 116 FPS and a minimum of 98 FPS, this preset provides smooth gameplay with no risk of dropping below the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset at 87 FPS is also viable, but the drop to a minimum below 98 FPS (not measured, but implied by the lower average) may introduce occasional dips. The Ultra preset at 83 FPS is playable but offers diminishing returns over High.

For 1440p users, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation. The 93 FPS average with a 79 FPS minimum ensures consistent smoothness, while High at 70 FPS and Ultra at 67 FPS are both above 60 FPS but with less headroom. The Low preset at 120 FPS is unnecessarily fast for most users and would sacrifice visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 1440p appears to be the sweet spot for this combo, delivering 93 FPS average with good visual quality.

For 4K users, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 88 FPS is the only preset that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 69 FPS is playable but has a minimum of 59 FPS, which means occasional drops below the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset at 52 FPS and Ultra at 49 FPS are not recommended for smooth gameplay at 4K. Users who prioritize 4K resolution should use Low settings for the best experience, or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p with Medium or High settings for a better balance of quality and performance.

The data suggests that for most users, the 1440p Medium preset provides the best overall experience — it offers a 93 FPS average, a solid 79 FPS minimum, and visual quality that is significantly better than Low while remaining well above 60 FPS. The 1080p Medium preset is the best option for users who prioritize maximum smoothness, with a 116 FPS average and a 98 FPS minimum. The 4K Low preset is the only 4K option that maintains consistently high frame rates, making it the recommended choice for 4K display users.