Microsoft Flight Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT lands at rank 2210 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the lower-middle tier of all systems tested, with roughly 74% of tested combos performing better. The ranking reflects a pairing where the GPU, released in 2019 and now end-of-life, represents the older half of the equation, while the CPU, released in January 2025, is a current-generation part.

This rank is not surprising given the GPU's percentileVsAllGpus of 59, meaning it outperforms only 59% of all GPUs in the database. The CPU, by contrast, sits at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, a substantial gap that suggests the graphics card is the limiting factor in most scenarios. The data implies that this combo's position in the rankings is driven primarily by GPU constraints rather than CPU headroom, a theme that recurs throughout the measured FPS results.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1605 MHz, with a game clock of 1755 MHz and a boost clock reaching 1905 MHz. These specifications, combined with 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs, yield a pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s. The GPU's FP32 performance is rated at 9.754 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards but still capable of running this flight simulator at playable frame rates in many configurations.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the GPU's role becomes evident when examining the 3840x2160 results. At Ultra settings, the combo manages only 33 FPS average, while High settings yield 34 FPS, and Medium reaches 46 FPS. The 8 GB VRAM capacity appears adequate for this game at these settings, as the memory bus and bandwidth figures are consistent with the observed performance. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 16277 and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2134 provide additional context, though these synthetic benchmarks don't capture the unique demands of flight simulation, which often stresses both CPU and GPU simultaneously.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M with an average score of 16351 and a deltaPct of 0.1, meaning the RX 5700 XT scores just 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and AMD Radeon PRO W7500 both score slightly higher at 16408 and 16415 respectively, with deltas of -0.3% each. Interestingly, even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 appears as a rival with a score of 16504 and a delta of -0.9%, though this seems anomalous given the vast performance differences in real-world gaming. These close synthetic scores suggest that the RX 5700 XT's raw compute capabilities are competitive with a specific tier of GPUs, but the game's actual performance depends heavily on architectural optimizations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 98 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low drops this to 79 FPS, a 19.4% reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 59 FPS, another 25.3% reduction from the 1440p figure. This scaling behavior is typical for a GPU-bound scenario, where the number of pixels rendered directly impacts frame rate.

At High settings, the pattern intensifies. The 1080p average of 58 FPS drops to 46 FPS at 1440p (a 20.7% decrease) and then to 34 FPS at 4K (a 26.1% decrease from 1440p). The Medium settings show similar scaling: 77 FPS at 1080p, 62 FPS at 1440p, and 46 FPS at 4K. The nearly consistent percentage drops across resolutions strongly suggest that the RX 5700 XT's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, rather than the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between resolutions, as the CPU work would remain constant regardless of pixel count.

The Ultra settings tell a slightly different story. At 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 55 FPS, which drops to 44 FPS at 1440p (20% decrease) and then to 33 FPS at 4K (25% decrease). The fact that 1080p Ultra only yields 55 FPS, not much higher than 4K High's 34 FPS, indicates that the GPU is already heavily loaded even at the lowest resolution when settings are maxed out. This suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's Ultra preset includes effects that are particularly demanding on the GPU's shading units and texture units, regardless of resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 98 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all configurations. Medium settings yield 77 FPS with a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS, providing a smooth experience. High settings drop to 58 FPS average, while Ultra settings bottom out at 55 FPS. The tight gap between High and Ultra at 1080p (only 3 FPS) suggests that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features are not fully taxing the GPU at this resolution, or that the CPU begins to play a more significant role in limiting performance.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates become more constrained. Low settings average 79 FPS, still comfortably playable. Medium settings drop to 62 FPS with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS, which introduces some noticeable dips during complex scenes. High settings average 46 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 44 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS at 1440p, indicating that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor and the additional settings in Ultra have diminishing returns.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain fluid frame rates. Low settings average 59 FPS, which is borderline playable. Medium settings drop to 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 FPS and a maximum of 52 FPS, meaning that even the minimum frame rate is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider ideal. High settings average 34 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 33 FPS. The nearly identical results between High and Ultra at 4K (only 1 FPS difference) strongly indicate that the GPU's compute resources are saturated, and further increasing graphical fidelity has negligible impact on performance.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's preference for frame rate versus visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset with its average of 77 FPS and minimum of 65 FPS offers the best balance of smoothness and visual quality. The High preset at 58 FPS is also viable, though the minimum frame rate is not recorded, making it harder to guarantee consistency. Low settings at 98 FPS are ideal for competitive or high-refresh-rate displays, but the visual compromise may not be worth it for a flight simulator where scenery detail is part of the experience.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset with 62 FPS average and 52 FPS minimum provides the most reliable experience, though users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness can opt for High at 46 FPS. The Ultra preset at 44 FPS is difficult to recommend, as the frame rate dips below 45 FPS, which can cause perceptible stuttering in a game that requires precise control. Low settings at 79 FPS remain an option for users who want maximum smoothness at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the data suggests that only the Low preset at 59 FPS approaches playability. Medium at 46 FPS may be acceptable for users who tolerate lower frame rates in slower-paced flight scenarios, but the 39 FPS minimum could be problematic during busy airport approaches or dense cloud formations. High and Ultra settings at 34 FPS and 33 FPS respectively are not recommended, as the experience would feel sluggish and unresponsive. For 4K users, the data implies that this combo is only suitable with significant graphical compromises.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample data storage for complex simulations. The CPU's PassMark multithreaded score of 37816 and single-thread score of 4516 place it in the 89th percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong performance for a desktop processor. Its Cinebench R23 scores of 14769 multicore and 2085 single-core further confirm its capability.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic, which can be extremely demanding in densely populated areas. The 14 cores and 14 threads means the CPU has no hyperthreading, which is unusual for a modern processor but does not appear to hamper performance in this game based on the data. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 with a deltaPct of 0.1% and the Intel Core i9-13900HX with a delta of -0.1%, indicating that the Ultra 5 235 performs nearly identically to these processors in the database's benchmarks.

The CPU's strong benchmark scores, particularly its 89th percentile ranking, suggest that it is not the primary bottleneck in this combo. The evidence from the resolution scaling analysis supports this conclusion: the consistent FPS drops as resolution increases are characteristic of a GPU-bound system. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, especially at 1080p where the CPU workload is proportionally higher relative to GPU work. The fact that 1080p Low achieves 98 FPS while 4K Low achieves only 59 FPS confirms that the GPU is the limiting component.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers the best combination of smoothness and visual quality, achieving 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium settings at 62 FPS are also viable, while 3840x2160 only becomes playable at Low settings with 59 FPS.

Q: How does this combo's CPU benchmark compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030) and 0.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 4364P (45970). It scores 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098). These deltas are negligible, indicating near-identical CPU performance.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The RX 5700 XT has a percentileVsAllGpus of 59, while the CPU has a percentileVsAllCpus of 89. Additionally, FPS drops consistently by roughly 20-25% with each resolution increase, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which produce 79 FPS average. Medium settings fall slightly below 60 FPS at 62 FPS average, though the minimum of 52 FPS means there will be dips below the 60 FPS threshold. High and Ultra settings average 46 FPS and 44 FPS respectively, so 60 FPS is not achievable at those presets.

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM capacity and how does it affect performance?

A: The RX 5700 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K Ultra settings, the combo achieves 33 FPS, which suggests the VRAM capacity is sufficient for this game's demands, as the bottleneck appears to be raw compute power rather than memory capacity.

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

A: The combo ranks 2210 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier. This ranking aligns with the GPU's 59th percentile performance rating, while the CPU's higher 89th percentile rating indicates the GPU is holding back the overall system performance.