Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings a 14-core, 14-thread configuration to Microsoft Flight Simulator, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This is a notably wide but thread-light design — 14 cores with no hyperthreading means the CPU relies on raw physical core count and high single-core boost rather than simultaneous multithreading to handle the simulator's workload. The architecture is Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 per core. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, which feeds the high-frequency cores with fast access to frequently used flight simulation data.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14769 and a single-core score of 2085. The single-core result is particularly telling for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for heavy per-thread simulation logic — the aircraft systems, weather modeling, and physics all tend to bottleneck on one or two threads rather than scaling across all available cores. The PassMark single-thread score of 4516 reinforces this strength, placing the CPU at the 89th percentile versus all CPUs in the database. The multi-thread PassMark score of 37816 shows the CPU can also flex its 14 cores when the simulator does spread work across threads, such as when loading complex scenery or processing AI traffic.

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are all within a hair of its performance. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030 (0.1% slower), the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098 (0.1% faster), and the AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 both score 45970 and 45960 respectively (0.2% faster). This clustering means the Ultra 5 235 sits in a tight performance envelope — in real-world flight sim terms, you would not expect a measurable difference between these CPUs in frame rate, because the simulator's bottleneck often lies elsewhere. The data suggests that the CPU's single-core boost of 5.00 GHz is what matters most for the simulation loop, not the raw multi-core throughput.

The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams terrain and photogrammetry data from storage and memory, this bandwidth is adequate but not exceptional. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU is present but irrelevant for gaming with a discrete GPU installed. The 65W TDP indicates a power-efficient design, which is notable for sustained simulation sessions where the CPU may hold high clocks for extended periods.

# FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compare to its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375?

A: The Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, which is 0.1% higher than the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375's 46030. In practical terms, this is a statistical tie — the data shows no meaningful performance gap between these two processors for any workload.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the combo delivers 56 FPS average, while at 1080p Low it reaches 101 FPS. The 45 FPS gap between Low and Ultra suggests the GPU is heavily loaded at Ultra settings, but the CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085) is still sufficient to keep up — the frame rate drop comes from the GPU's rendering workload, not a CPU bottleneck.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested CPU-GPU combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 2058 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower third of all combos, which is expected given the RTX 2060 SUPER's age and the simulator's demanding nature.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and is it enough for 4K?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 3840x2160 Medium settings, the combo produces 47 FPS average with a minimum of 40 FPS — the 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for Medium presets, but the 35 FPS at High and 33 FPS at Ultra suggest the memory capacity or bandwidth becomes a constraint at higher settings.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance relative to its multi-thread performance?

A: The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2085, while the multi-core score is 14769 — a ratio of roughly 7.1:1 for 14 cores, indicating good but not perfect scaling. The PassMark single-thread score of 4516 places the CPU at the 89th percentile overall, which is strong for flight simulation where single-thread performance is critical.

Q: Does the CPU's 14-core/14-thread configuration help in this game?

A: The data shows the CPU can produce a multi-thread PassMark score of 37816, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's frame rates scale primarily with single-thread performance. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 101 FPS — this high ceiling indicates the 14 cores are not a bottleneck; the limiting factor at higher settings is the GPU.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 78 at 1920x1080 to 63 at 2560x1440, then to 47 at 3840x2160. This is a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is a typical signature of a GPU-limited scenario — the RTX 2060 SUPER's pixel throughput (105.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (224.4 GTexel/s) are being taxed as resolution increases.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more dramatic: 101 FPS at 1080p drops to 81 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop), then to 60 FPS at 4K (a 26% drop from 1440p). The fact that Low settings still show a significant 4K penalty suggests the GPU's raw rasterization throughput is the limiting factor even when shader complexity is minimal. The 4K Low result of 60 FPS exactly matches common display refresh rates, but the margin is thin — any heavier scene load could push it below 60.

At High settings, the scaling is steeper: 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 20%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 26%. This non-linear scaling indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s) becomes increasingly strained as resolution increases, because the simulator must fetch and process more texture and geometry data per frame. The 8 GB VRAM capacity also plays a role — at 4K High, the card is likely approaching its memory limit, causing additional overhead.

Ultra settings show the worst scaling: 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS is essentially unplayable for smooth flight, and even the 1080p Ultra figure of 56 FPS is marginal. The data indicates that the RTX 2060 SUPER is the dominant bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p Low — the CPU's high single-core score (2085 in Cinebench R23) and strong PassMark single-thread performance (4516) are never the limiting factor in these measurements.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2058 out of 2996 tested CPU-GPU combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in approximately the 31st percentile of all tested combos — meaning roughly 69% of tested systems deliver higher average frame rates in this game. The rank reflects the RTX 2060 SUPER's age (released in 2019) and its position at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, paired with a CPU at the 89th percentile of all CPUs.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 18093 places it just below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159, 0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18189, 0.5% faster), but above the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18373, 1.5% faster) and Intel Arc A770M (18383, 1.6% faster). This tight clustering means the RTX 2060 SUPER is functionally equivalent to these rivals in raw GPU compute — any performance differences in flight sim would come from driver optimizations or VRAM management rather than raw throughput.

The CPU's rank is much stronger — at the 89th percentile, it sits well above the median tested processor. This asymmetry between CPU and GPU performance explains the combo's overall position: the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU more frames than the GPU can render, particularly at 4K where the GPU's 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 8 GB VRAM become limiting. The data shows that if the GPU were upgraded, the CPU would not be the bottleneck — the 14-core Ultra 5 235 has headroom to drive a faster graphics card.

The 2058th rank out of 2996 combos means this system is positioned for 1080p gaming rather than 4K. At 1080p Medium (78 FPS) and 1080p High (59 FPS), the experience is respectable. At 1440p, the combo is borderline playable on Medium (63 FPS) but struggles on Ultra (45 FPS). At 4K, only Low settings (60 FPS) approach playability.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results show a clear settings hierarchy. Low settings deliver the highest average of 101 FPS. Medium settings produce 78 FPS average, with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS — the min-max range of 23 FPS indicates scene-dependent variability. High settings yield 59 FPS average. Ultra settings drop to 56 FPS average, which is surprisingly close to High — only a 3 FPS difference, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds effects that are not particularly taxing on this GPU at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the same settings produce lower results. Low settings average 81 FPS. Medium settings average 63 FPS, with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 73 FPS. High settings average 47 FPS. Ultra settings average 45 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS at 1440p, indicating that the Ultra preset's additional settings (likely volumetric clouds, shadows, and reflections) are being limited by the GPU's fill rate rather than compute.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal. Low settings average 60 FPS. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. High settings average 35 FPS. Ultra settings average 33 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 40 FPS is concerning — during complex scenery or weather, the frame rate could dip into the 30s, causing noticeable stutter in flight.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows a 13-15 FPS gap from Low, and a 12-16 FPS gap from High. The High-to-Ultra gap is consistently small (3 FPS at 1080p, 2 FPS at 1440p, 2 FPS at 4K). This pattern suggests that the Ultra preset's marginal visual improvements are not worth the frame rate cost — the GPU's 2176 shading units and 64 ROPs are the constraint at higher settings.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium as the sweet spot for this combo. At 1080p Medium, the average of 78 FPS with a minimum of 67 FPS provides a smooth experience with headroom for complex scenes. The 67 FPS minimum ensures that even dense urban areas or heavy weather rarely cause the frame rate to drop below 60. At 1440p Medium, the 63 FPS average with a 54 FPS minimum is playable but close to the edge — for competitive or immersion-critical flying, this is acceptable but not ideal.

Low settings are the only option for 4K gaming with this combo. The 60 FPS average at 4K Low is exactly at the standard refresh rate, but the lack of min/max data for this row means we cannot assess the worst-case frame rate. Given the 4K Medium minimum of 40 FPS, the 4K Low minimum is likely higher but still potentially below 60 during heavy load. For visual quality, High settings at 1080p (59 FPS) may be preferable to Medium at 1440p (63 FPS) for users who prioritize detail over resolution.

Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution. The 56 FPS at 1080p Ultra represents only a 3 FPS gain over High, and the 33 FPS at 4K Ultra is unplayable. The data indicates that the Ultra preset's incremental settings — likely including higher shadow resolution, more detailed clouds, and additional post-processing — provide minimal visual benefit while consuming GPU resources that could otherwise maintain higher frame rates. The RTX 2060 SUPER's 8 GB VRAM and 7.181 TFLOPS are simply not sufficient to run this simulation at Ultra with acceptable performance.

For the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness, the recommendation is 1080p High (59 FPS) or 1440p Medium (63 FPS). The 1080p High setting provides more visual detail per pixel, while 1440p Medium offers a sharper image with slightly higher frame rates. Users with 4K displays should stick to Low settings (60 FPS) to maintain playability, accepting reduced visual quality.

# GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER plays the decisive role in this combo's flight sim performance. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivering 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, the GPU has adequate but not abundant memory resources for Microsoft Flight Simulator's vast textures and terrain data. The TU106 chip, built on TSMC's 12 nm process with 10,800 million transistors, provides 2176 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. These specs translate to 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 105.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 224.4 GTexel/s texture rate.

The GPU's benchmark performance places it at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 18093. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.6% of its score, indicating that the RTX 2060 SUPER is a mid-tier card that has aged into the lower-midrange segment. The 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores are present for ray tracing and DLSS, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's measured performance suggests these features are not heavily utilized — the frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K follows a traditional rasterization pattern rather than showing ray tracing overhead.

The GPU's clock speeds of 1470 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost are modest by modern standards, and the 175W TDP with a suggested 450W PSU indicates the card is power-hungry relative to its performance class. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is a potential bottleneck in theory, but the measured data shows no signs of interface saturation — the frame rate drops from 1080p to 4K are consistent with GPU compute and memory bandwidth limits.

The VRAM capacity is the most critical factor at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces only 33 FPS, and even at 4K High it drops to 35 FPS. The 8 GB memory is likely being maxed out at these settings, causing texture streaming stalls and reduced frame rates. At 1080p, the 8 GB is sufficient, as shown by the 101 FPS Low result and 59 FPS High result. The GPU's 14 Gbps effective memory speed and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for 1080p but strained at 1440p and above.

The data clearly shows the GPU is the limiting component in this system. The CPU's 89th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 62nd percentile means the Ultra 5 235 has significant headroom to drive a more powerful graphics card. For users considering upgrades, the CPU would not need replacement — a newer GPU with more VRAM and higher compute would directly translate to higher frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, particularly at 1440p and 4K resolutions where the RTX 2060 SUPER currently struggles.