Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 in Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a study in balance, where the CPU's strong single-threaded performance meets a GPU that is positioned in the mid-range of the benchmark database. The measured data reveals a configuration that is capable of playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p but begins to strain at 4K, particularly under higher graphical presets. This analysis explores the specific FPS measurements, the division of labor between processor and graphics card, and the implications for settings optimization, using only the provided benchmark facts.

FAQ

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

A: The combo ranks 2027th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of all configurations in the database for this specific game.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo, and at what settings?

A: The highest average frame rate is 101 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: At which resolution and preset does the combo first dip below 60 FPS on average?

A: At 3840x2160 (4K) resolution with High settings, the average frame rate drops to 35 FPS. Before that, at 2560x1440 with High settings, the average is 48 FPS, which is also below 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 46062. This is nearly identical to its closest rivals, being 0.1% faster than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, 0.1% slower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX, and 0.2% faster than both the AMD EPYC 4364P and AMD EPYC 7303.

Q: What is the performance percentile of the AMD Radeon RX 7600 among all GPUs?

A: The RX 7600's benchmark score places it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it performs better than a majority of graphics cards in the database.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum frame rates recorded for the Medium preset at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the combo produces an average of 79 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture and Navi 33 chip, is the primary graphics processor in this configuration. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The GPU's boost clock is listed at 2655 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz. These specifications position the card in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15171. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, which scores 15199, a negligible 0.2% difference.

The data suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings. The measured FPS shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, frame rates drop significantly across all presets. For instance, at High settings, the average FPS falls from 59 at 1080p to 48 at 1440p, and then to 35 at 4K. This steep decline with resolution is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering load increases faster than the graphics card can process it. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a notable factor; while not directly measured in the FPS data, it is the configured memory size and could influence performance at 4K with high-resolution textures, though the numbers provided do not explicitly confirm a VRAM limit.

The GPU's performance relative to its rivals further contextualizes its role. The RX 7600 is closely matched with the RTX 3050 OEM and AMD Radeon 680M, with delta percentages of -0.2% and -0.7% respectively. This indicates that in this game, the graphics card's performance is consistent with other mid-range options, and its capabilities are likely the limiting factor for achieving higher frame rates at demanding resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is positioned at rank 2027 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the configuration in the 67th percentile of combos, meaning roughly two-thirds of all tested combinations perform better. This ranking is a holistic measure that considers both components' contributions to the game's overall performance.

This rank indicates that while the setup is functional, it is not optimized for the highest levels of performance in this simulation. The CPU alone is in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062. This is a high ranking, suggesting the processor is a strong performer. In contrast, the GPU is in the 57th percentile of all GPUs. The discrepancy between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's mid-range percentile is significant. It suggests that the combo's overall rank is dragged down by the graphics card's more modest performance, which is unable to fully leverage the CPU's capabilities.

The data implies that this pairing is more CPU-heavy in its performance profile. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its complex simulation logic, the strong CPU is an asset. However, the GPU's limits become apparent at higher resolutions and settings, preventing the combo from reaching the upper echelons of the performance rankings. The rank of 2027 serves as a clear indicator that this is a mid-tier combination, capable of decent performance at lower resolutions but not a top-tier contender.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the configuration handles all presets well. Low settings yield an average of 101 FPS, Medium produces 79 FPS (with a range of 67 to 90 FPS), High reduces the average to 59 FPS, and Ultra brings it down to 56 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 45 FPS, showing a clear scaling with graphical load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings still provide a smooth 81 FPS average. Medium settings average 63 FPS, with a range of 54 to 73 FPS. High settings fall to an average of 48 FPS, and Ultra dips to 45 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 36 FPS. The 1440p data suggests that this resolution is the practical limit for high-refresh-rate play, as only the Low and Medium presets maintain an average above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly struggling. Low settings are the only playable option, with an average of 60 FPS. Medium settings drop to 47 FPS (range of 40 to 54 FPS), High falls to 35 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 33 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 27 FPS. The data shows a consistent pattern: the average frame rate decreases as both resolution and settings increase, with the most dramatic drops occurring at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals how the system's performance is affected by pixel count, and it points directly to the GPU as the limiting component. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by 22% at High settings (from 59 to 48 FPS), by 20% at Low settings (from 101 to 81 FPS), by 20% at Medium settings (from 79 to 63 FPS), and by 20% at Ultra settings (from 56 to 45 FPS). This consistent ~20% reduction for a 78% increase in pixel count (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million pixels) indicates a scaling pattern.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is more severe. At High settings, the FPS drops by 27% (from 48 to 35 FPS). At Low settings, the drop is 26% (from 81 to 60 FPS). Medium settings see a 25% reduction (from 63 to 47 FPS), and Ultra settings drop by 27% (from 45 to 33 FPS). This represents a 2.25x increase in pixel count (from 3.69 million to 8.29 million) but a smaller relative drop in performance compared to the 1080p to 1440p transition. This suggests that while the raw pixel count is higher, the game's rendering efficiency at 4K is not perfectly linear, but the trend is unmistakable: the GPU is being overwhelmed.

The fact that Low settings at 4K achieve an average of 60 FPS, while High settings at 1440p only reach 48 FPS, is particularly telling. This indicates that the resolution has a greater impact on performance than the settings preset in this configuration. The limiting component is the GPU's rendering throughput, as reducing graphical complexity (settings) does not compensate for the massive increase in pixel count at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.00 GHz. The CPU's benchmark data shows strong performance, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769 and a single-core score of 2085. Its Passmark single-thread score is 4516. This performance places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062.

Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core i9-13900HX, have nearly identical average scores, with delta percentages of 0.1% and -0.1% respectively. This indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235 is a top-tier performer in synthetic benchmarks. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for its simulation logic, the CPU's strong single-core score (2085 in Cinebench R23) is likely a critical asset.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this configuration. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 101 FPS, a high frame rate that suggests the CPU can feed frames quickly. However, as the resolution increases, the FPS drops, indicating that the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The CPU's high percentile ranking, combined with the FPS scaling pattern, implies that the processor has headroom to spare, and the performance ceiling is set by the RX 7600. The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support also contribute to its ability to handle the game's data demands without becoming a constraint.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and frame rate target. For a smooth 60 FPS experience, the data points to specific configurations.

At 1920x1080, the user has flexibility. For the highest visual quality while maintaining a playable frame rate, High settings at 59 FPS are very close to the 60 FPS target. However, to ensure a consistent 60+ FPS experience, Medium settings at 79 FPS are a safer choice, offering a significant performance buffer with only a modest reduction in visual fidelity. Ultra settings at 56 FPS are just below the 60 FPS threshold and may result in occasional dips. Low settings at 101 FPS are overkill for most users.

At 2560x1440, the choice becomes more constrained. Medium settings at 63 FPS are the only preset that provides an average above 60 FPS. This is the recommended configuration for a balance of visual quality and smoothness. Low settings at 81 FPS are also viable for users who prioritize frame rate above all else. High settings at 48 FPS and Ultra at 45 FPS are playable but will not deliver a consistently smooth experience, especially in demanding scenes.

At 3840x2160, the options are limited. Low settings at 60 FPS are the only preset that hits the 60 FPS average. This is the recommended setting for 4K play. Medium settings at 47 FPS are playable but will feel less smooth. High and Ultra settings, at 35 FPS and 33 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a good experience. The data suggests that users with a 4K display should either accept Low settings or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for better visual quality and performance. The best experience per the measured rows is Medium at 1440p, which offers a good balance of detail and smoothness, or Low at 4K for those who prioritize resolution.