Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT in Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a study in balance and limitation. The benchmark data reveals a configuration that is capable of high refresh rates at lower resolutions but becomes increasingly constrained as pixel count rises. This analysis examines the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, the specific roles of the CPU and GPU, and how this combination ranks against the broader field of tested hardware.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured data shows a clear and predictable progression of performance degradation as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the demanding Ultra preset, the average frame rate falls from 85 FPS at 1080p to 69 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 51 FPS at 4K. This represents a substantial 40% drop in performance from the lowest to the highest resolution tested. The pattern is consistent across all settings, indicating that the rendering load scales heavily with pixel count, which is typical for a visually intensive flight simulator.

The scaling behavior offers insight into which component is the primary bottleneck at different points. At 1080p, the gap between the Low and Ultra presets is significant, with average FPS ranging from 153 down to 85. This wide spread suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is not fully saturated at lower settings, allowing the CPU and its 14 cores to push frame rates higher. The 153 FPS result at Low settings indicates a ceiling that is likely influenced by the processor's single-thread performance, as flight simulators often have a dominant main thread for game logic and scenery management.

When moving to 1440p, the average FPS at High settings drops to 72, and at Ultra to 69. The narrowing of the gap between High and Ultra at 1440p compared to 1080p suggests a shift toward GPU limitation. The RX 6800 XT, with its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, has the capacity to handle the increased data, but the compute load begins to bite into performance. The 4K results confirm this trend; at 3840x2160, the High and Ultra presets deliver nearly identical average frame rates of 53 and 51 FPS respectively. This convergence is a strong indicator that the GPU is now the definitive limiting factor, as the additional detail from the Ultra preset can no longer be fully processed without a proportional drop in frame rate.

The data implies that the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has sufficient headroom at higher resolutions to feed the GPU, but the RX 6800 XT simply cannot maintain the same level of performance as the pixel count quadruples. The 4K results, hovering just above 50 FPS on high-end presets, suggest that this combination is better suited for 1440p gaming, where it can deliver a smoother experience without sacrificing visual fidelity. The scaling pattern is a classic example of a balanced mid-to-high-end system that performs admirably at mainstream resolutions but hits a hard wall at 4K.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture and features a substantial 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title notorious for streaming vast amounts of terrain, photogrammetry, and aircraft detail data. The high bandwidth ensures that texture data can be fed to the GPU without introducing stutter, which is reflected in the measured minimum FPS values. For instance, at 1440p Medium, the minimum FPS is recorded at 82, with an average of 96, showing that the memory subsystem can keep up with demand.

The GPU's clock speeds, with a base of 1825 MHz and a boost of 2250 MHz, contribute to its raw compute throughput of 20.74 TFLOPS. This compute power is what allows the card to achieve frame rates like 153 FPS at 1080p Low, where the emphasis is on raw vertex and pixel processing. However, the game's high and ultra presets introduce more complex shading and lighting models, which increases the workload on the 4608 shading units. The measured drop from 153 FPS at Low to 85 FPS at Ultra at 1080p highlights the significant cost of these enhanced effects.

At 4K Ultra, the GPU's limitations become apparent with a 51 FPS average. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is not the issue here, as the game would likely require less than that even at maximum detail. Instead, the bottleneck lies in the GPU's pixel fill rate and shader execution. The card's pixel rate of 288.0 GPixel/s is challenged by the 8.3 million pixels of a 4K display, especially when combined with the high draw distances and complex geometry of the simulator. The data suggests that the RX 6800 XT is a capable 1440p card for this game, but for 4K, users would need to consider the Medium preset, which yields a 71 FPS average, to achieve a playable experience without dipping into the 50s.

The GPU's benchmark scores, such as a Passmark G3D score of 24980 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 3689, place it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A550M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, with the RX 6800 XT trailing the RTX 5070 Ti by 3% in average benchmark score. This context suggests that while the 6800 XT is not the fastest card on the market, its performance in this specific simulator is strong enough to produce high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, with the 4K experience requiring a compromise in settings.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo to maintain a high refresh rate?

A: Based on the measured data, 2560x1440 offers the best balance. At High settings, the combo delivers 72 FPS, and at Medium, it achieves 96 FPS, both of which are above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. 1080p also provides high frame rates, but 1440p offers a sharper image without a significant performance penalty.

Q: Does the 16 GB of VRAM on the RX 6800 XT provide enough memory for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Yes, the data indicates that the 16 GB VRAM is sufficient. The performance drops seen when moving from 1440p to 4K are more attributable to the GPU's compute throughput and pixel fill rate than to memory capacity, as the card's high memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s helps avoid stuttering, evidenced by the minimum FPS values at Medium settings.

Q: How much of a frame rate penalty is there for using the Ultra preset over the High preset?

A: The penalty varies by resolution. At 1080p, the drop from High (90 FPS) to Ultra (85 FPS) is only 5 FPS. At 1440p, the drop is 3 FPS (from 72 to 69). At 4K, the drop is just 2 FPS (from 53 to 51). The Ultra preset is increasingly affordable at higher resolutions, as the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 holding back the RX 6800 XT in this game?

A: At 1080p, the CPU appears to be a limiting factor at lower settings, as the 153 FPS Low result suggests a ceiling. However, at 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, and the CPU has enough performance to keep up, as the frame rates scale consistently with resolution and settings.

Q: What is the average frame rate at 4K with the Medium preset?

A: The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Medium settings is 71 FPS, with a minimum of 60 FPS and a maximum of 81 FPS. This makes Medium the recommended preset for 4K, as it provides a playable experience with a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS baseline.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 882nd out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 30% of all configurations, indicating a solidly above-average pairing for this title.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS data provides a clear guide for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the best choice for users with high refresh rate monitors. The 85 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS standard, and the 5 FPS difference from the High preset is a minor cost for the maximum visual fidelity. For users seeking the highest possible frame rates, the Low preset at 153 FPS could be used, but the Medium preset at 119 FPS offers a better balance of visual quality and speed.

For 2560x1440, the High preset is the recommended sweet spot. It delivers a 72 FPS average, which is smooth and playable, while the Ultra preset only provides a marginal 3 FPS improvement over High. The Medium preset, at 96 FPS, offers a significant performance boost for users who prefer higher frame rates over maximum detail, but the High preset appears to provide the best overall experience without the need for compromise.

At 3840x2160, the Medium preset is the only viable option for a consistently smooth experience. The 71 FPS average is excellent for 4K, and the minimum FPS of 60 ensures that there are no major hitches. The High and Ultra presets, with averages of 53 and 51 FPS respectively, dip below the ideal 60 FPS threshold and are likely to feel less fluid during demanding scenes like flying over dense cities or during weather effects. The data strongly suggests that users with 4K displays should start with the Medium preset and adjust from there, as it provides the best balance of performance and visual fidelity in this configuration.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following breakdown details the exact measured average frame rates for each resolution and preset combination. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 153 FPS. The Medium preset delivers 119 FPS, with a minimum of 101 and a maximum of 137 FPS. The High preset produces an average of 90 FPS, and the Ultra preset yields 85 FPS. This shows a clear hierarchy, with Low being nearly twice as fast as Ultra.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset remains strong at 123 FPS. The Medium preset averages 96 FPS, with a minimum of 82 and a maximum of 110. The High preset drops to 72 FPS, and the Ultra preset is close behind at 69 FPS. The relative performance gap between presets narrows at this resolution, indicating a growing GPU workload.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset still manages a respectable 91 FPS. The Medium preset averages 71 FPS, with a minimum of 60 and a maximum of 81 FPS. The High preset falls to 53 FPS, and the Ultra preset is the slowest at 51 FPS. The data at 4K shows a compressed range from Low to Ultra, with only a 40 FPS difference, underscoring the GPU's dominant role as the resolution increases.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This configuration provides substantial multi-threaded capability, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769. However, Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for its reliance on single-thread performance, and the CPU's single-core score of 2085 in Cinebench R23 is a key indicator of its ability to handle the game's primary simulation thread.

The measured FPS data at 1080p Low, achieving 153 FPS, suggests that the Core Ultra 5 235 has strong single-thread headroom. The high boost clock of 5.00 GHz is likely the main driver here, allowing the processor to process the game's core logic quickly. The 14 cores also contribute to background tasks, such as AI traffic, weather simulation, and terrain loading, which helps prevent stutters. The CPU's Passmark multithread score of 37816 and its 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicate a robust processor that can handle the game's auxiliary demands.

The CPU's nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Core i9-13900HX, with performance deltas of 0.1% and -0.1% respectively. This places the Ultra 5 235 in a competitive position against mobile and high-end laptop chips, but its performance in this desktop context is more relevant to its ability to feed the GPU. The data shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, as the frame rates are consistently limited by the GPU. At 1080p, the CPU's performance ceiling appears to be around 153 FPS at Low settings, which is more than adequate for most users.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the comprehensive database of tested hardware combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 882nd out of 2996 total configurations. This percentile placement, roughly in the top 30%, indicates a solidly above-average system for this specific game. The rank considers the combined performance of both components, and this result suggests that the pairing is well-matched, with neither component severely limiting the other in a way that would drag the rank down.

The rank of 882 implies that there are 882 other combinations that perform better in this simulator, which is expected given the presence of more powerful CPUs and GPUs in the market. However, the fact that this combo sits above 2114 other configurations highlights its capability to deliver a high-quality experience. The data suggests that the RX 6800 XT, despite being an end-of-life product, still offers competitive performance when paired with a modern CPU like the Core Ultra 5 235.

The GPU's performance percentile of 85 and the CPU's percentile of 89 are both high, and their combination in this ranking reflects that synergy. While the GPU's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA RTX 5070 Ti, may have higher average benchmark scores, the actual in-game performance of the 6800 XT is sufficient to secure a strong ranking. The 882nd rank confirms the balanced nature of this setup, making it a viable choice for gamers who prioritize both high resolution and high frame rates, even if it does not top the charts.