Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding PC titles in its genre, and the measured results for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570 place this combination near the bottom of the tested pool, ranking 2870 out of 2996 combos. The data shows that this system is only viable at lower resolutions and settings, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. This analysis covers the CPU and GPU roles, measured frame rates across all twelve resolution/settings combinations, and practical settings recommendations based solely on the provided facts.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combination ranks 2870 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 4.2% of all configurations. This rank reflects the system’s limited ability to maintain playable frame rates in a demanding flight simulator.

Q: Which settings preset provides the highest average FPS at 1920x1080?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest measured average FPS at 1920x1080, reaching 48 FPS. Medium follows at 38 FPS, High at 28 FPS, and Ultra at 27 FPS. Low is the only preset that approaches a comfortable 60 FPS target, though it still falls short.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compare to its nearest CPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 46062, which is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 at 46030 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 46098 (0.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4364P at 45970 (0.2% higher). These differences are negligible in real-world gaming.

Q: What is the best average FPS achieved at 2560x1440 with this combo?

A: The best average FPS at 2560x1440 is 39 FPS, achieved with the Low preset. Medium delivers 30 FPS, High drops to 23 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 22 FPS. None of these meet a smooth 60 FPS standard.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 570 have enough VRAM for Ultra settings at 4K?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, and the measured data shows that at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is only 16. This suggests the combination of the 4 GB VRAM and the GPU’s compute power is insufficient for that resolution and preset, as the frame rate falls well below playable thresholds.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score is 28766, which is 0.4% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874), 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28580), 0.8% lower than the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996), and 1.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (28421). These are all close scores, indicating similar raw compute performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node. It features 14 cores and 14 threads, with no hyper-threading, which is a notable design choice for a modern CPU. The base clock is 3.40 GHz, and the boost clock reaches 5.00 GHz, providing strong single-thread performance that is critical for flight simulation workloads that often rely on a primary simulation thread.

In terms of cache, the CPU has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 24 MB L3 cache. This memory hierarchy helps feed the 14 cores with data, but the lack of additional threads means the CPU cannot leverage simultaneous multi-threading. The memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is sufficient for feeding both the CPU and the discrete GPU in most scenarios.

The CPU’s benchmark results show a balanced profile. In Cinebench R23, it scores 14769 in multicore and 2085 in single-core. The single-core score is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game’s simulation loop is often single-threaded. The PassMark single-thread score is 4516, and the multithread score is 37816. These scores place the CPU in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms most processors in general compute tasks.

When compared to its nearest rivals, the CPU is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Core i9-13900HX, both of which have average scores within 0.1% of the Ultra 5 235. This suggests that in CPU-bound scenarios, this processor is not a limiting factor relative to those alternatives. However, in this specific game, the data indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint, as frame rates scale more with resolution and settings changes than with CPU performance.

The TDP is 65 W, which is modest, but the CPU’s 14 cores can still generate significant heat under load. The socket is Intel Socket 1851, and the CPU supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, which provides ample bandwidth for modern GPUs. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU, though they are irrelevant for this discrete GPU configuration. The CPU was released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $257, and it is currently active in production.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the simulation logic, AI traffic, and physics calculations. The 14 cores and 14 threads provide enough parallelism for background tasks, but the game’s main thread will likely not fully utilize all cores. The high boost clock of 5.00 GHz helps ensure that the primary thread can execute quickly, which is why the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in the measured FPS. Instead, the frame rates are limited by the GPU’s ability to render the complex scenery and terrain.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user’s resolution and tolerance for lower frame rates. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 48 FPS, which is the highest average across all settings. Medium drops to 38 FPS, High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 27 FPS. For a smooth experience, Low is the only viable option, though it still falls short of 60 FPS. If the user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, Medium at 38 FPS may be acceptable for slower flight phases, but it will likely stutter during complex maneuvers.

At 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low delivers 39 FPS, Medium 30 FPS, High 23 FPS, and Ultra 22 FPS. The Low preset remains the best choice, but the drop from 48 FPS at 1080p to 39 FPS at 1440p shows the GPU’s limitations. Users should stick to Low for any semblance of playability, as Medium and above dip below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for a flight simulator where smooth camera movement is essential.

At 3840x2160, all presets are below 30 FPS. Low delivers 29 FPS, Medium 22 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. Even Low is barely playable, and the Ultra preset at 16 FPS is a slideshow. For 4K, this combo is not recommended, as even the lowest settings cannot maintain a consistent 30 FPS.

The measured data includes min and max FPS only for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1920x1080 Medium, the min is 32 FPS and max is 43 FPS, indicating significant frame time variance. At 2560x1440 Medium, min is 26 and max is 35. At 3840x2160 Medium, min is 19 and max is 26. This variance suggests that even the Medium preset experiences stutter, making Low the safer recommendation.

In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is achieved with the Low preset at 1920x1080, yielding 48 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate. Users with 1440p monitors should also use Low, accepting 39 FPS. For 4K, the system is not viable for serious play, as even Low at 29 FPS will be frustrating. The data clearly indicates that this hardware combination is best suited for 1080p gaming with reduced visual fidelity.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 570 combination ranks 2870 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4.2% of all configurations, which is a poor result for a game that demands high-end hardware. The rank reflects the GPU’s age and limited VRAM, as well as the overall system’s inability to handle the game’s heavy rendering load.

To put this rank in context, the CPU alone is in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, showing that the processor is not the weak link. The GPU, however, is in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, which is decent for general tasks but insufficient for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The combo’s rank of 2870 suggests that most other tested systems, even those with older CPUs, outperform this pair because they have more capable GPUs.

The nearest GPU rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6800M and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, have similar average benchmark scores (within 1.2%), but these are mobile or professional parts. The RX 570’s 4 GB VRAM is a significant limitation, as modern flight simulators can exceed that capacity at higher resolutions and settings. The measured FPS data confirms this: at Ultra settings, the frame rates are in the teens, which is unplayable.

For users considering this combo, the rank indicates that it is only suitable for low-end 1080p gaming with reduced settings. The CPU has headroom, as evidenced by its benchmark scores, but the GPU holds the system back. Upgrading to a more powerful GPU would likely improve the rank significantly, as the CPU’s 14 cores and 5.00 GHz boost clock can support higher frame rates in less GPU-bound scenarios.

The delta percentages for the CPU’s nearest rivals are all within 0.2%, meaning that swapping the Ultra 5 235 for a Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 or an i9-13900HX would not change the combo’s rank in a measurable way. The bottleneck is purely the GPU. Similarly, the GPU’s nearest rivals are all within 1.2% in average score, so the RX 570 is not significantly faster or slower than its immediate peers. This reinforces the conclusion that the rank is driven by the GPU’s overall class rather than any specific deficiency.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is a graphics card based on the Polaris 20 chip, using the GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process node. It has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The base clock is 1168 MHz, with a boost clock of 1244 MHz. The memory is 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is the primary limitation for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game’s high-resolution textures and scenery can easily exhaust 4 GB of VRAM.

The GPU’s compute capability is rated at 5.095 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, which is modest by modern standards. The pixel rate is 39.81 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 159.2 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that the GPU can handle older titles well, but for a 2020-era flight simulator with expansive draw distances, it struggles. The TDP is 150 W, and the card requires a 450 W power supply, which is reasonable for a mid-range card.

The GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, which are all compatible with Microsoft Flight Simulator. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which is older but sufficient for this GPU’s bandwidth needs. The card was released on 2017-04-17 with a launch MSRP of 169 USD, and it is now end-of-life. The predecessor is Arctic Islands, and the successor is Vega.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU’s role is evident. At 1920x1080, the frame rates range from 27 FPS on Ultra to 48 FPS on Low. This spread of 21 FPS shows that the GPU is heavily impacted by settings changes. At 2560x1440, the range is 22 to 39 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it drops to 16 to 29 FPS. The consistent pattern is that higher settings and resolutions reduce the frame rate, with the GPU being the bottleneck.

The 4 GB VRAM is a critical issue. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the game likely exceeds the VRAM capacity, causing severe stuttering and low frame rates (16 FPS). Even at 1080p Ultra, the 27 FPS average suggests that the GPU is maxed out. The data does not provide VRAM usage, but the performance degradation at higher settings is consistent with memory pressure.

The GPU’s benchmark scores show a Metal score of 39349, OpenCL of 32084, and Vulkan of 42752. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 880. These scores place the GPU in the 74th percentile, which is above average for all GPUs, but the percentile does not account for the specific demands of flight simulation. In this game, the GPU is the limiting factor, and users should not expect playable frame rates beyond 1080p Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Ultra averages 16 FPS, High averages 17 FPS, Medium averages 22 FPS with a min of 19 and max of 26, and Low averages 29 FPS. The gap between Ultra and Low is 13 FPS, but even Low fails to reach 30 FPS. This resolution is not viable for this combo.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates improve slightly. Ultra averages 22 FPS, High averages 23 FPS, Medium averages 30 FPS with a min of 26 and max of 35, and Low averages 39 FPS. The improvement from 4K to 1440p is significant, with Low gaining 10 FPS. However, only Low and Medium exceed 30 FPS, and Medium’s min of 26 FPS indicates frame drops. Users at 1440p should use Low for the most consistent experience.

At 1920x1080, the combo’s best performance is achieved. Ultra averages 27 FPS, High averages 28 FPS, Medium averages 38 FPS with a min of 32 and max of 43, and Low averages 48 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that approaches a playable frame rate, though 48 FPS is still below the 60 FPS ideal. Medium at 38 FPS is acceptable for a slower-paced flight sim, but the min of 32 FPS suggests occasional stutters. High and Ultra are both below 30 FPS, making them poor choices.

The data shows a clear trend: each resolution step down from 4K to 1080p yields roughly a 10 FPS improvement at Low settings (29 to 39 to 48). This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where lowering resolution reduces the pixel fill rate demand. The settings presets also have a predictable impact, with Low providing the highest FPS and Ultra the lowest. The Medium preset’s min and max values are only provided, and they show a tight range of 7 FPS at each resolution, indicating that Medium is relatively stable but not smooth.

For users seeking the best experience, the data recommends 1920x1080 with Low settings, yielding 48 FPS. If visual quality is more important, 1920x1080 Medium at 38 FPS is the second-best option. At 2560x1440, only Low (39 FPS) is recommended, and at 3840x2160, no preset is playable. The Ultra presets at all resolutions are effectively unplayable, with frame rates ranging from 16 to 27 FPS. This breakdown confirms that the combo is a low-end solution best suited for 1080p gaming with reduced settings.