Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with Intel Core Ultra 5 225 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

This combo ranks 1449th out of 2996 tested configurations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the upper-middle tier of the database. The pairing of Intel's 10-core Arrow Lake processor with NVIDIA's Ampere-based RTX 3060 Ti produces a system that handles the sim's demanding flight dynamics and dense scenery at playable frame rates across most settings, though 4K Ultra remains a stretch. The measured data reveals a clear hierarchy: the CPU carries the load at lower resolutions, while the GPU becomes the primary constraint as pixel count climbs.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average is 124 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 100 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it reaches 74 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations in this game?

A: It ranks 1449th out of 2996 total combos tested, meaning it sits just above the midpoint of the database — roughly 52nd percentile. The CPU itself ranks in the 85th percentile across all CPUs tested, while the GPU is in the 59th percentile.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low produces 124 FPS average, while Ultra yields 69 FPS — a 55 FPS gap. The Medium preset sits at 96 FPS, and High lands at 73 FPS.

Q: Does the RTX 3060 Ti's 8 GB VRAM cause problems at 4K in this game?

A: The data shows playable averages at 4K on Medium (57 FPS) and High (43 FPS), but Ultra drops to 41 FPS. The 8 GB capacity appears sufficient for these presets, as the frame rate scaling from High to Ultra is modest rather than a catastrophic collapse.

Q: How does the RTX 3060 Ti compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: Its average benchmark score of 16129 is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16014) and 1.4% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351). The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT also scores 16361, which is 1.4% higher.

Q: What is the CPU's performance profile relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 averages 36938 in synthetic benchmarks, essentially matching the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% delta). It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D by 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4%, while sitting 0.5% behind the Intel Core i9-12900T.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium as the sweet spot for this configuration. At 1920x1080 Medium, the combo delivers 96 FPS average with a minimum of 82 FPS and maximum of 111 FPS — a smooth experience with enough headroom for the sim's unpredictable scenery loads. At 2560x1440 Medium, it maintains 78 FPS average with a 66-89 FPS range, which remains comfortably playable for a flight simulator where responsiveness matters more than twitch-reflex fluidity. Even at 3840x2160 Medium, the 57 FPS average with 49-66 FPS range is workable for slower-paced flight.

High settings are viable for those prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate. At 1080p High, the 73 FPS average is solid, and 1440p High at 58 FPS remains acceptable. However, 4K High at 43 FPS approaches the lower boundary of smoothness. Ultra settings are only recommended at 1080p, where 69 FPS average holds up, while 1440p Ultra at 56 FPS and 4K Ultra at 41 FPS become marginal. Low settings push frame rates high — 124 FPS at 1080p, 100 FPS at 1440p, and 74 FPS at 4K — but the visual compromise in a game renowned for its scenery fidelity is substantial.

The data suggests a per-resolution strategy: 1080p users can run High for the best balance, 1440p users should stick to Medium, and 4K users should accept Medium as the ceiling for consistent playability. The min FPS values at Medium across all resolutions (82, 66, and 49 respectively) show the frame pacing stays within a tight envelope, which is critical in a sim where sudden stutters disorient the pilot.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 brings 10 cores and 10 threads to the table, running at a 3.30 GHz base clock and boosting to 4.90 GHz. This Arrow Lake-S chip draws 65 W TDP and uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB L2 per core. Its synthetic scores — 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3655 in single-core — place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong headroom for the sim's physics and AI computations.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role manifests most clearly at lower resolutions where the GPU isn't the bottleneck. The jump from 1080p Low (124 FPS) to 1080p Ultra (69 FPS) shows the settings-driven load, but the fact that 1080p Low reaches 124 FPS suggests the CPU can feed frames well beyond what most displays refresh at. The PassMark multi-thread score of 30459 and single-thread score of 4412 reinforce that both single-core and multi-core workloads are handled competently.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic averages — the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 0% delta and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at -0.2% — indicate this is a mid-pack performer among peers. The 10-core, 10-thread configuration without hyperthreading means the CPU relies on raw clock speed and architecture efficiency rather than thread count. The 4.90 GHz boost clock is notably high, which benefits the sim's primary simulation thread that handles flight dynamics and weather. The data suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor at 1440p and 4K, given that frame rates scale downward more steeply with resolution than with settings changes alone.

How This Combo Ranks

At rank 1449 out of 2996 combos, this pairing lands almost exactly in the middle of the database — slightly above the 50th percentile. This middling position is somewhat surprising given the CPU's strong 85th percentile standing and the GPU's 59th percentile rank. The gap between component percentiles and combo rank implies that Microsoft Flight Simulator's engine does not fully leverage the strengths of either component in this pairing.

The CPU's nearest rivals all score within 0.5% of its 36938 average, with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (36945), AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093) clustering tightly. Meanwhile, the GPU's rivals show a wider spread: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16014) trails by 0.7%, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (both around 16350) lead by 1.4%. This suggests the GPU is slightly weaker relative to its peers than the CPU is to its own cohort.

The combo's rank of 1449 means 1547 tested configurations performed better in this game, which is notable given the hardware's respectable individual benchmark positions. Flight simulators are notoriously demanding on both CPU and GPU simultaneously, and this pairing appears to hit a performance ceiling where neither component can fully compensate for the other's limitations. The measured FPS data confirms this: even at 1080p Low, the 124 FPS average doesn't reach the heights that the CPU's synthetic single-thread score might suggest possible in less demanding titles.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti uses the GA104 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 4864 shading units, 152 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and the card boosts to 1665 MHz from a 1410 MHz base. The 16.20 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 38 RT cores indicate a capable mid-range GPU that was end-of-life as of the data collection, with a 200 W TDP.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's influence becomes dominant as resolution increases. The pattern from 1080p to 4K at each settings tier shows consistent drops: Low goes from 124 to 74 FPS (a 40% reduction), Medium from 96 to 57 FPS (41% reduction), High from 73 to 43 FPS (41% reduction), and Ultra from 69 to 41 FPS (41% reduction). This uniform ~40% scaling across all settings points to a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions, where the 8 GB VRAM and memory bandwidth become the constraining factors.

The GPU's synthetic average of 16129 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (0.7% faster) and behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and RX 5700 XT (both 1.4% slower). Its PassMark G3D score of 20349 and DirectX 12 score of 78 suggest solid DirectX 12 performance, which is relevant given the game's API requirements. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is substantial for a mid-range card, but the 8 GB capacity may limit texture streaming at 4K Ultra where the sim loads extensive scenery data. The measured FPS values at 4K Ultra (41 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (69 FPS) show the GPU struggling to maintain playable rates at the highest settings and resolution combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is covered: Low delivers 124 FPS average, Medium produces 96 FPS with a measured range of 82-111 FPS, High reaches 73 FPS, and Ultra drops to 69 FPS. The 55 FPS spread between Low and Ultra demonstrates the significant impact of settings on this resolution, where the GPU has enough headroom to render quickly and the CPU feeds frames efficiently.

At 2560x1440, the averages shift downward: Low gives 100 FPS, Medium delivers 78 FPS with a 66-89 FPS range, High yields 58 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 56 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS at this resolution, suggesting that Ultra's additional effects tax the GPU without proportional visual benefit. The Medium preset's min FPS of 66 remains above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the most reliable choice at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the data shows a steeper decline: Low averages 74 FPS, Medium produces 57 FPS with a 49-66 FPS range, High drops to 43 FPS, and Ultra falls to 41 FPS. The Medium min of 49 FPS is below 60, which may cause visible stutters in dense urban areas or weather-heavy scenes. The High and Ultra values cluster tightly (43 and 41 FPS), indicating that the GPU is nearing its architectural limits at 4K regardless of settings beyond a certain point. The 33 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is smaller than the 55 FPS difference at 1080p, confirming that resolution scaling imposes a hard ceiling.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K reveals a consistent ~40% frame rate drop across all settings, which is less severe than the pixel-count increase (four times the pixels) would suggest. This indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering pipeline is not purely pixel-bound — the CPU's simulation and draw-call overhead remain significant at every resolution. From 1080p Low (124 FPS) to 4K Low (74 FPS), the drop is 50 FPS, while from 1080p Ultra (69 FPS) to 4K Ultra (41 FPS), the drop is 28 FPS. The absolute reduction is larger at Low settings because the system starts from a higher baseline, but the percentage drop is nearly identical.

The scaling pattern suggests a balanced bottleneck: at 1080p, the CPU's 4.90 GHz boost clock and 10 cores are the primary drivers, pushing frame rates high when the GPU can render quickly. As resolution increases, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth become the limiting factor, capping performance at 4K regardless of settings. The fact that 4K Ultra (41 FPS) is only 2 FPS lower than 4K High (43 FPS) but 16 FPS lower than 4K Medium (57 FPS) implies that the jump from Medium to High introduces a significant GPU workload increase, while the High-to-Ultra step adds less marginal load.

The 1440p data sits between these extremes, with Medium at 78 FPS representing the resolution's optimal balance. The consistent ~40% scaling suggests that upgrading either component alone would yield diminishing returns — a faster CPU wouldn't help at 4K, and a faster GPU wouldn't boost 1080p frame rates proportionally. The 49 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is the lowest recorded value in the dataset, indicating that the combo's weakest performance scenario is 4K with moderate settings, where the GPU's capacity limits frame pacing during complex scenery loads.