Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 delivers a broadly capable Microsoft Flight Simulator experience, with frame rates that scale predictably across resolutions and settings. The data shows a configuration that is heavily influenced by the GPU at higher detail levels, while the CPU’s 10 cores and 10 threads provide sufficient headroom for the simulation’s processing demands. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, component roles, and measured performance to provide a clear picture of what this combo offers.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate is 218 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This represents the peak of the measured data, with the same resolution at Medium and High settings producing 170 FPS and 128 FPS respectively.

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

A: The combo ranks 143rd out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 5% of all recorded results. This high percentile reflects the strong synergy between the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 for this specific title.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between Ultra and Low settings at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset yields 72 FPS average, while the Low preset produces 130 FPS average. This 58 FPS gap between the two extremes highlights how dramatically the graphical load impacts performance at this resolution.

Q: Does the CPU’s benchmark score place it close to any particular rival?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938, which is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% delta). It also sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and the Intel Core i9-12900T, indicating very tight competition in synthetic CPU tests.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration, and how does it relate to the game?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For a flight simulator with extensive scenery and texture data, this large memory pool and high bandwidth help maintain consistent frame rates, especially at higher resolutions and detail settings.

Q: Are there any measured frame rate values below 72 FPS in the data?

A: No, the lowest average frame rate recorded is 72 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. All other measured configurations produce average frame rates of 76 FPS or higher, with the minimum FPS values for Medium settings at 1440p and 1080p being 116 and 144 FPS respectively.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 is the primary driver of visual performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and its specifications align closely with the observed frame rates. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz, pairing 10752 shading units with 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores. For a simulation that renders vast landscapes, detailed aircraft models, and dynamic weather, these compute resources translate directly into the measured averages. The 16 GB of GDDR7 memory, running at an effective 30 Gbps with 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth, provides ample capacity for high-resolution textures and complex scenery tiles, which is evident in the strong 4K performance.

Looking at the benchmark scores, the RTX 5080 achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 8637 and a Passmark G3D score of 36565, placing it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in synthetic tests include the AMD Radeon 8060S (0.6% higher score) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (0.7% higher), while the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE trails by 2.2%. These margins are small, suggesting the RTX 5080’s raw compute is competitive, but the game’s specific optimization for NVIDIA hardware may explain why the measured FPS remains robust across all settings.

The GPU’s role becomes more pronounced as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS reaches 218, which suggests the CPU and GPU are both capable of high throughput. However, at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average drops to 72 FPS, a 67% reduction from the 1080p Low figure. This scaling indicates that the RTX 5080 is heavily taxed by the combination of high pixel count and maximum detail, yet it still maintains a playable frame rate. The pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s provide the theoretical foundation for this performance, allowing the card to fill the screen with detailed imagery without becoming a bottleneck in most scenarios.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 provides the processing foundation for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its heavy reliance on single-thread performance for flight dynamics and physics calculations. This CPU features 10 cores and 10 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache help reduce latency for frequently accessed data, while the dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth ensures the CPU can feed the GPU without stalling. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3655 in single-core, with a Passmark single-thread score of 4412. These results place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018, -0.2% delta), showing that the Ultra 5 225 is essentially on par with these alternatives in general computing tasks. For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the data suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor in most tested configurations. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS of 218 is high enough that the CPU’s single-thread capabilities are clearly sufficient to drive the simulation’s logic. Even at 1440p with Ultra settings, the average FPS of 98 indicates that the CPU can keep up with the GPU’s output demands.

However, the CPU’s role becomes more apparent when examining the scaling from Low to Ultra at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 218 on Low to 122 on Ultra, a 44% reduction. This drop is primarily due to the GPU being pushed harder by higher detail settings, but the CPU must also handle more draw calls and scenery complexity. The fact that the 1080p Ultra average of 122 FPS is only slightly lower than the 1440p High average of 103 FPS suggests that the CPU maintains consistent performance across these loads. The 10-core, 10-thread configuration, while not hyper-threaded, provides enough parallelism for the game’s background tasks, such as AI traffic and weather simulation, without introducing significant bottlenecks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 achieves a rank of 143 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the configuration in the top 4.8% of all recorded results, which is a strong showing for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The rank reflects the measured FPS data, which shows consistent performance across all resolution and settings combinations. The combo’s percentile ranking is driven by the GPU’s ability to maintain high frame rates even at 4K Ultra, while the CPU’s benchmark scores ensure that it does not drag down the overall results.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the CPU alone sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU sits in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. The combo’s 143rd rank out of 2996 suggests that the pair performs slightly better than the sum of its parts, likely due to the game’s optimization for the RTX 5080’s architecture. The nearest rival combos in the database are not explicitly listed, but the individual component rivals give an indication. For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has nearly identical synthetic scores, so a combo with that CPU and the same GPU would likely rank similarly. For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE has a 2.2% higher benchmark score, which could translate to a marginally higher in-game rank if paired with a comparable CPU.

The data also shows that the combo’s rank is not inflated by any single extreme result. The lowest average FPS is 72 at 4K Ultra, which is still playable, and the highest is 218 at 1080p Low, which is exceptionally smooth. This consistency across the board is a hallmark of a well-balanced system, where neither component is severely over- or under-powered for the other’s capabilities. In practical terms, a user with this combo can expect a smooth experience at nearly any setting, with only the most demanding 4K Ultra preset dipping below 80 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s priority between visual fidelity and frame rate smoothness. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset delivers 72 FPS average, which is the minimum playable threshold for many users. The High preset at 4K produces 76 FPS average, a marginal improvement that might not justify the visual downgrade from Ultra. However, the Medium preset at 4K offers 101 FPS average with a minimum of 86 FPS, making it the best choice for a smooth 4K experience without sacrificing too much detail. The Low preset at 4K jumps to 130 FPS average, but the visual compromise is significant for a simulation that thrives on scenery detail.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset provides 137 FPS average with a minimum of 116 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. The High preset at 1440p yields 103 FPS average, while Ultra produces 98 FPS average. The difference between High and Ultra is only 5 FPS, so users with a 144Hz display might prefer High for the extra headroom. The Low preset at 1440p reaches 176 FPS average, but again, this is likely too much of a visual reduction for most flight sim enthusiasts. For 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers 170 FPS average with a minimum of 144 FPS, making it the best balance for competitive or high-refresh-rate play. The High preset at 1080p shows 128 FPS average, and Ultra shows 122 FPS, both of which are smooth but leave some performance on the table.

The recommendation is to start with the Medium preset at the user’s native resolution, as it consistently provides the best combination of high average FPS and acceptable minimums. For 4K users, Medium is the clear winner, offering 101 FPS average versus 76 FPS on High and 72 FPS on Ultra. For 1440p and 1080p users, Medium also outperforms High and Ultra by a wide margin, with the added benefit of a recorded minimum FPS that ensures fewer frame drops during complex scenes. The data does not include minimum FPS values for Low, High, or Ultra settings, which makes it harder to recommend those presets for users who are sensitive to stuttering.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of how this combo performs across three resolutions and four settings presets. Starting with 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 218 FPS, which is the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 170 FPS average, with a minimum of 144 FPS and a maximum of 195 FPS. The High preset drops to 128 FPS average, and the Ultra preset falls to 122 FPS average. This progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (42 FPS), indicating that the High preset introduces a significant graphical load increase.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 176 FPS average, which is still very high and only 42 FPS lower than the 1080p Low result. The Medium preset at 1440p shows 137 FPS average, with a minimum of 116 FPS and a maximum of 157 FPS. The High preset yields 103 FPS average, and the Ultra preset produces 98 FPS average. The gap between Medium and High at 1440p is 34 FPS, which is smaller than the 42 FPS gap at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU is becoming a larger factor at this resolution. The minimum FPS for Medium at 1440p is 116, which is only slightly lower than the 1080p Medium minimum of 144, indicating consistent frame pacing.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 130 FPS average, which is a substantial drop from the 176 FPS at 1440p Low. The Medium preset at 4K delivers 101 FPS average, with a minimum of 86 FPS and a maximum of 116 FPS. The High preset produces 76 FPS average, and the Ultra preset falls to 72 FPS average. The minimum FPS for Medium at 4K is 86, which is the lowest minimum recorded in the entire dataset, but still above the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider playable. The difference between 4K Low and 4K Ultra is 58 FPS, which is the largest absolute gap between any two settings at a single resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a clear pattern of frame rate scaling as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 218 at 1080p to 176 at 1440p (a 19% reduction) and then to 130 at 4K (a 26% reduction from 1440p). This means that moving from 1080p to 4K at Low settings results in a 40% overall decrease in average FPS, from 218 to 130. This scaling is relatively gentle, indicating that at Low settings, the CPU and GPU are both operating with significant headroom, and the resolution increase is the primary driver of the performance change.

At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 170 at 1080p to 137 at 1440p (a 19% reduction) and then to 101 at 4K (a 26% reduction from 1440p). The overall decrease from 1080p to 4K is 41%, nearly identical to the Low settings scaling. The minimum FPS at Medium also scales proportionally, from 144 at 1080p to 116 at 1440p and then to 86 at 4K. This consistency suggests that the Medium preset does not introduce any resolution-specific bottlenecks, and the performance degradation is directly tied to the pixel count.

At High settings, the average FPS drops from 128 at 1080p to 103 at 1440p (a 20% reduction) and then to 76 at 4K (a 26% reduction from 1440p). The overall decrease from 1080p to 4K is 41%, matching the Low and Medium patterns. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 122 at 1080p to 98 at 1440p (a 20% reduction) and then to 72 at 4K (a 27% reduction from 1440p). The overall decrease is 41%, which is consistent across all four presets.

This uniform scaling indicates that the limiting component is the GPU, as the CPU’s performance does not change with resolution. The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical for all settings (ranging from 40% to 41%) suggests that the RTX 5080 is the primary bottleneck at every preset. The CPU’s role is to maintain a frame rate ceiling, which appears to be above 218 FPS at 1080p Low, but as resolution increases, the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth become the determining factors. The 960.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth is sufficient to handle the increased data throughput at 4K, but the shading units and ROPs are pushed to their limits, resulting in the observed frame rates. The data confirms that this combo is well-balanced, with the GPU limiting performance at higher resolutions and the CPU providing ample support at lower resolutions.