Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator Combo Analysis: Intel Core Ultra 5 235 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT lands at rank 2058 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database. The pairing sits at the 68.7th percentile of tested configurations, meaning roughly a third of all combos tested deliver better performance in this title. The data shows a system that can handle the simulator at playable levels, but with clear compromises required at higher resolutions and quality settings. The CPU ranks in the 89th percentile among all processors tested, while the GPU sits in the 70th percentile among all graphics cards — an interesting gap that hints at where the bottleneck may lie in this flight sim.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2058 out of 2996 tested combinations places this pairing firmly in the lower third of the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a demanding title, and the data suggests this hardware configuration struggles to keep pace with the majority of tested systems. The CPU's percentile position (89th among all CPUs) is notably stronger than the combo's overall rank, which indicates that the graphics card is dragging down the system's standing in this particular game. The GPU's 70th percentile among all graphics cards is respectable for general workloads but appears insufficient for the heavy rendering demands of flight simulation.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals provides context for the processor's contribution. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 posts an average benchmark score of 46062, which places it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030) and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098). The AMD EPYC 4364P (45970) and AMD EPYC 7303 (45960) trail by 0.2%. These are essentially statistical ties, meaning the CPU is performing at a level consistent with some very capable processors. The problem is that even with this strong CPU showing, the combo still ranks poorly — a strong signal that the GPU is the limiting factor.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals tell a similar story. The Radeon RX 6600 XT averages 24442 across all benchmark tests. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 scores 24277 (0.7% slower), the Intel Arc A350M scores 24647 (0.8% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti scores 24236 (0.8% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER scores 24170 (1.1% slower). These are all older or lower-tier cards, and the fact that this GPU is trading blows with a GTX 780 Ti from years ago explains why the combo rank suffers in a modern, demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data indicates that while the CPU is punching above its weight class, the GPU is holding the entire system back.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to the table, operating at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boosting up to 5.00 GHz. This is a 3nm Arrow Lake-S part from TSMC, featuring 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The processor supports DDR5 memory through a dual-channel interface with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. These specifications position the CPU as a strong performer for simulation workloads, which often rely on single-thread performance for the main simulation loop.

Benchmark results confirm the CPU's capabilities. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769 and single-core score of 2085 demonstrate solid performance. In Passmark tests, the CPU achieves a multithread score of 37816 and a single-thread score of 4516. The floating-point math score of 117951 and integer math score of 87948 indicate strong arithmetic processing, which matters for the physics and aerodynamic calculations in flight simulation. The data compression score of 390711 and random string sorting score of 48980 show efficient memory and cache utilization.

The CPU's 89th percentile ranking among all tested processors confirms that it is not the weak link in this system. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation logic, weather systems, and AI traffic. The 14 cores provide ample parallelism for background tasks, while the 5.00 GHz boost clock ensures that the primary simulation thread can run at high speed. The 24 MB of L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores, reducing memory latency during complex flight scenarios. The data suggests that the CPU is delivering near-top-tier performance for this game, making it unlikely that processor limitations are causing the modest frame rates observed.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7nm process at TSMC. The GPU features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. It operates at a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The GPU's benchmark results show a mixed picture. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1804 and Passmark G3D score of 16461 indicate moderate DirectX 12 performance. However, the Passmark DirectX 12 score of 61 is notably low, while DirectX 11 scores 163 and DirectX 9 scores 194. The Geekbench scores are more robust: Metal at 88720, OpenCL at 80503, and Vulkan at 72417. The GPU compute score of 7520 suggests the card handles compute workloads reasonably well. The pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s and texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s provide theoretical throughput that should handle moderate resolutions, but the 8 GB VRAM capacity may become a constraint in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads extensive terrain and aircraft data.

The GPU's 70th percentile ranking among all graphics cards indicates it is an average performer. The 8 GB VRAM is workable for this game, but the memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s might limit performance when rendering detailed scenery at high resolutions. The 32 ray tracing cores are present but likely underutilized in this title. The 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 compute performance provides a baseline for rasterization work, though the data suggests this is not sufficient to push frame rates significantly higher at demanding settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a clear picture of performance across resolutions and settings. At 1080p, the combo delivers 101 FPS on Low settings, 78 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 66 and maximum of 90), 59 FPS on High, and 56 FPS on Ultra. These numbers show that 1080p gaming is viable across all settings, with even Ultra maintaining above 55 FPS. The gap between High (59 FPS) and Ultra (56 FPS) is small, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset.

Moving to 1440p, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings produce 81 FPS, Medium delivers 63 FPS (minimum 54, maximum 73), High drops to 47 FPS, and Ultra falls to 45 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 2 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset offers minimal visual benefit for the performance cost at this resolution. The Medium preset still maintains a playable 63 FPS, but High and Ultra push the system into territory where frame rate dips could become noticeable during complex scenes.

At 4K, the performance becomes more challenging. Low settings produce 60 FPS, Medium delivers 47 FPS (minimum 40, maximum 54), High drops to 35 FPS, and Ultra falls to 33 FPS. The 4K Low result is interesting — exactly 60 FPS suggests the system is hitting a performance ceiling at this resolution. The Medium preset's minimum of 40 FPS indicates potential stuttering during heavy scenes. High and Ultra settings at 4K produce frame rates that many users would find too low for a smooth flight simulation experience.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important information about the system's bottleneck. At Low settings, performance drops from 101 FPS at 1080p to 81 FPS at 1440p (a 19.8% reduction) and then to 60 FPS at 4K (a 40.6% reduction from 1080p). This scaling is relatively gradual, suggesting that at Low settings, the system is not severely bound by any single component.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar: 78 FPS at 1080p drops to 63 FPS at 1440p (19.2% reduction) and then to 47 FPS at 4K (39.7% reduction from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium settings suggests a balanced load between CPU and GPU at these quality levels.

The scaling pattern changes at High settings. From 1080p (59 FPS) to 1440p (47 FPS), there is a 20.3% reduction. From 1440p to 4K (35 FPS), there is a 25.5% reduction. The larger drop from 1440p to 4K suggests the GPU is becoming more heavily loaded at higher resolutions. At Ultra settings, the pattern is similar: 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p (19.6% reduction), and 33 FPS at 4K (41.1% reduction from 1080p).

The data indicates that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor at 4K, particularly at High and Ultra settings. The CPU's strong single-thread performance helps maintain playable frame rates at lower resolutions, but the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and limited memory bandwidth struggle to keep up with the higher pixel counts and texture loads at 4K. The relatively consistent scaling at Low and Medium settings suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at these levels, but the GPU's raw throughput becomes the constraint at higher settings and resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 78 FPS with a minimum of 66 FPS, providing a smooth experience with room to spare. At 1440p, Medium maintains 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS, which remains playable for most users. Even at 4K, Medium produces 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS, which is borderline but acceptable for a flight simulator where precise timing is less critical than in fast-paced action games.

The Low preset is the safe choice for 4K gaming, delivering exactly 60 FPS. This is a significant jump from Medium's 47 FPS at the same resolution, making Low the recommended setting for users who prioritize smoothness over visual fidelity at 4K. The High preset offers minimal improvement over Medium at 1440p (47 FPS vs 63 FPS — a significant drop) and 4K (35 FPS vs 47 FPS), making it hard to justify except at 1080p where it achieves 59 FPS.

The Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions above 1080p. At 1440p, Ultra delivers 45 FPS compared to Medium's 63 FPS — a 28.6% performance penalty for visual improvements that are often subtle in flight simulation. At 4K, Ultra's 33 FPS is likely too low for a comfortable experience. Even at 1080p, Ultra's 56 FPS is only 3 FPS lower than High's 59 FPS, but the performance headroom of Medium (78 FPS) makes it the better choice for maintaining consistent frame rates during complex flight scenarios.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that Medium settings at 1440p provides 63 FPS average with a minimum of 54 FPS, offering the best balance of visual quality and smoothness. For 4K gaming, Low settings at exactly 60 FPS is the recommended combination.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 averages 46062 across all benchmarks, placing it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030) and Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098). It is 0.2% ahead of both the AMD EPYC 4364P (45970) and AMD EPYC 7303 (45960).

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

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 89th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 70th percentile among all graphics cards. The combo rank of 2058 out of 2996 reflects this imbalance.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon RX 6600 XT averages 24442 across all benchmarks. It is 0.7% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (24277), 0.8% slower than the Intel Arc A350M (24647), 0.8% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24236), and 1.1% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (24170).

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows 56 FPS average at 1080p with Ultra settings. This is the only resolution where Ultra remains playable, though Medium at 78 FPS provides significantly more headroom.

Q: How much performance drops when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: The performance drop varies by setting. At Low settings, frame rates fall from 101 FPS to 60 FPS (a 40.6% reduction). At Medium, from 78 FPS to 47 FPS (39.7% reduction). At High, from 59 FPS to 35 FPS (40.7% reduction). At Ultra, from 56 FPS to 33 FPS (41.1% reduction).