Microsoft Flight Simulator

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 desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture using TSMC's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features a 24 MB shared L3 cache, alongside 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and its 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide a modern platform foundation.

In CPU benchmark terms, the Core Ultra 5 235 sits in the 89th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098 (0.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303 score 45970 and 45960 respectively (both 0.2% higher). This indicates the processor is essentially at parity with a broad set of high-end mobile and server parts in synthetic workloads.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant because the simulation engine handles extensive physics, flight dynamics, and world-generation logic. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 142 FPS on average, while at 1080p Ultra it drops to 79 FPS. This 63 FPS spread across settings at the same resolution demonstrates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at lower settings, but the simulation's computational demands scale heavily with visual complexity. The 14 threads are fully utilized by the game's multi-threaded rendering and simulation tasks, as indicated by the PassMark multithread score of 37816 and the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14769.

The single-core performance is also relevant. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085 and PassMark single-thread score of 4516 suggest strong per-thread throughput, which matters for the game's main simulation loop that cannot always be fully parallelized. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 111 with a minimum of 94 and maximum of 127, showing that the CPU maintains a stable frame delivery even when the GPU is not the primary constraint.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 79 FPS. This is the lowest average among the four settings tested at this resolution, with Low at 142 FPS, Medium at 111 FPS, and High at 83 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, which is 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46098) and 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030). This places the three processors at near-identical performance levels in synthetic multi-core workloads.

Q: Does the system maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the measured average FPS is 47. This is the lowest average across all resolution and setting combinations tested. While technically playable, it falls below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider smooth for this simulation genre.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and High settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves an average of 115 FPS, while the High preset achieves 67 FPS. This represents a 48 FPS reduction, or approximately 41.7% lower performance, when moving from Low to High settings.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance rank relative to all CPUs?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235's PassMark single-thread score is 4516, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2085. The CPU overall sits in the 89th percentile against all CPUs, indicating strong single-thread capabilities that benefit the simulation's primary logic thread.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1080p Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings is 94 FPS, with a maximum of 127 FPS and an average of 111 FPS. This indicates consistent frame pacing without significant drops below the average.

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

The measured data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 142 at 1080p to 115 at 1440p (a 19.0% reduction), and further to 85 at 4K (a 40.1% reduction from 1080p). This scaling curve is characteristic of a GPU that becomes progressively more saturated as pixel count grows. The RTX 3070 Ti's 8 GB GDDR6X memory and 608.3 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed more heavily at higher resolutions, particularly in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator which renders dense terrain and atmospheric effects.

At Medium settings, the same pattern holds: 111 FPS at 1080p drops to 89 FPS at 1440p (19.8% reduction) and then to 66 FPS at 4K (40.5% reduction from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium suggests that the scaling is primarily resolution-driven rather than setting-driven. However, at High and Ultra settings, the percentage drops are slightly different. High settings show 83 FPS at 1080p, 67 FPS at 1440p (19.3% reduction), and 49 FPS at 4K (41.0% reduction). Ultra settings show 79 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p (19.0% reduction), and 47 FPS at 4K (40.5% reduction).

The fact that the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is remarkably consistent across all four settings (ranging from 40.1% to 41.0%) indicates that the limiting component at 4K is the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth, not the CPU's processing capability. The CPU's 14 cores are sufficient to keep up with the simulation at all tested resolutions, as evidenced by the similar relative scaling patterns. The RTX 3070 Ti's pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s are the likely bottlenecks at 4K, particularly with the game's high-resolution textures and draw distances.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti ranks 1009th out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the top third of all configurations tested, specifically at the 66.3rd percentile. Given that the CPU is in the 89th percentile against all CPUs and the GPU is in the 75th percentile against all GPUs, the combo's overall ranking suggests that the pairing is well-balanced but not at the extreme high end of performance.

The ranking indicates that there are 1008 combos that achieve better performance in this game, which typically include higher-tier GPUs such as the RTX 3080, RTX 3090, or newer RTX 40-series cards, or CPUs with higher multi-core scores. However, the combo still outperforms approximately 1,987 other tested configurations, indicating that it delivers solid frame rates across most resolution and settings combinations. The measured FPS data confirms this: the system achieves above 60 FPS at 1080p for all settings, above 60 FPS at 1440p for Low, Medium, and High settings, and above 45 FPS at 4K for all settings except Ultra.

The combo's rank relative to its component parts' individual percentiles suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator is somewhat more GPU-intensive than the average game, as the GPU's 75th percentile ranking is more predictive of the combo's 66.3rd percentile performance than the CPU's 89th percentile. This is consistent with the resolution scaling analysis, which showed the GPU becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 142 FPS, the Medium preset delivers 111 FPS with a minimum of 94 and maximum of 127, the High preset delivers 83 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 79 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 63 FPS, with the most significant drop occurring between Low and Medium (31 FPS) and between Medium and High (28 FPS), while the drop from High to Ultra is a smaller 4 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers an average of 115 FPS, the Medium preset delivers 89 FPS with a minimum of 76 and maximum of 103, the High preset delivers 67 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 64 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 51 FPS, with similar step-downs between presets. The drop from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the highest settings.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers an average of 85 FPS, the Medium preset delivers 66 FPS with a minimum of 56 and maximum of 76, the High preset delivers 49 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 47 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 38 FPS, and notably, the drop from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS, making Ultra a marginal improvement over High at this resolution.

The minimum FPS data is only available for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 94 FPS; at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 76 FPS; and at 4K Medium, the minimum is 56 FPS. These minimums are all within 18% of their respective averages, indicating stable frame delivery without severe stuttering.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the Medium preset emerges as the most balanced choice across all resolutions. At 1080p, Medium delivers 111 FPS average with a minimum of 94 FPS, which provides smooth gameplay while still offering improved visual fidelity over Low. At 1440p, Medium delivers 89 FPS average with a minimum of 76 FPS, comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for a smooth simulation experience. At 4K, Medium delivers 66 FPS average with a minimum of 56 FPS, which is marginally below 60 FPS on the minimum but still playable.

The High preset offers a modest visual improvement over Medium but at a significant performance cost. At 1080p, High drops to 83 FPS (25.2% lower than Medium), and at 1440p it drops to 67 FPS (24.7% lower). At 4K, High drops to 49 FPS (25.8% lower), which begins to feel less smooth for a flight simulator that benefits from consistent frame pacing.

The Ultra preset provides only marginal gains over High. At 1080p, the difference is 4 FPS (79 vs 83), at 1440p it is 3 FPS (64 vs 67), and at 4K it is 2 FPS (47 vs 49). Given that the game is a simulation where visual fidelity is secondary to smooth control response, the Medium preset is recommended for most users. For users with 1440p displays who want higher visual quality, the High preset at 67 FPS is still a viable option. The Low preset at 4K (85 FPS) is recommended for users prioritizing maximum smoothness over visual detail.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is built on the Ampere architecture using Samsung's 8 nm process node, with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. It features 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 1575 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with memory running at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The card includes 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores, delivering 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s.

In GPU benchmark terms, the RTX 3070 Ti sits in the 75th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29945. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (29928, 0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30095, 0.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (29783, 0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30433, 1.6% lower). This places the card in a competitive position with both previous-generation and current mid-range offerings.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is critical at higher resolutions, as demonstrated by the FPS scaling. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the game's texture requirements at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the memory bandwidth of 608.3 GB/s becomes a limiting factor. The measured FPS at 4K High (49 FPS) and 4K Ultra (47 FPS) are nearly identical, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a memory or compute ceiling rather than a settings-specific bottleneck.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 23356 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3478 indicate strong DirectX 12 performance, which is relevant since Microsoft Flight Simulator utilizes DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The 48 RT cores are present but the game does not heavily rely on ray tracing, so the RTX 3070 Ti's rasterization performance is the primary driver of the measured results. The GPU's 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is sufficient for the game's rendering demands at 1080p and 1440p across all settings, but the 4K results show that the card is stretched to its limits, particularly with the simulation's complex terrain and weather rendering.