Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER lands at rank 272 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the top 9% of all tested systems, a strong result for a flight simulator that tends to punish both CPU and GPU heavily. The ranking reflects the balance of this pairing: the CPU sits at the 89th percentile among all tested processors, while the GPU holds the 76th percentile among all GPUs. Neither component is the absolute fastest in its class, but their combined performance in this specific title is what pushes the combo into the upper echelon of results.

The data shows this combo outperforms roughly 91% of all other tested combinations. That is not a fluke of a single benchmark; it is consistent with the measured FPS across resolutions and settings. For context, the CPU's average benchmark score of 46,062 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030) and 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098). The GPU's average benchmark score of 31,087 trails the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676) by 1.9% but leads the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 (31,206) by 0.4%. In practice, these margins are small enough that the combo's rank in-game is more about how the two parts interact with Flight Simulator's specific engine demands than about raw synthetic scores.

One notable observation: the CPU's percentile ranking (89th) is higher than the GPU's percentile ranking (76th). This suggests the processor is relatively stronger in general compute workloads, but the game's performance ceiling in this pairing is likely set by the graphics card, especially at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU has more headroom to push frame rates; at 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck. We will quantify this in the resolution scaling section below.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is built on the AD103 chip using TSMC's 5nm process, with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective), while the base clock is 2340 MHz and the boost clock reaches 2610 MHz. The card has 8,448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 66 ray tracing cores, and 264 tensor cores. Its FP32 compute is rated at 44.10 TFLOPS, with identical FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth are significant. The game streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data, and the 16 GB frame buffer helps avoid stutter when flying over dense urban areas or photogrammetry regions. The 672.3 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming keeps pace with the engine's demands, particularly at 4K resolution. The GPU's pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s are relevant here, as Flight Simulator fills the screen with complex geometry and high-resolution textures.

Benchmark results for the GPU show a PassMark G3D score of 31,811 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 199,267. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,569 indicates strong DirectX 12 performance, which matters because Flight Simulator uses DX12. The card also posts a PassMark DirectX 12 score of 119, which is lower than its DirectX 11 score of 278, but this is a synthetic pattern common across many GPUs and does not necessarily translate to worse in-game DX12 performance.

The data suggests the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 64, while at Low settings it reaches 116. The gap between settings grows with resolution, which points to the GPU's raw throughput being the deciding factor. The card's TDP of 285 W and suggested 600 W PSU are typical for this performance class, but we do not have power draw measurements from the game itself.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for smooth gameplay?

A: At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 114, which is comfortable for most players. For higher visual fidelity, 2560x1440 at High yields 92 FPS average. If you prioritize frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low delivers 194 FPS, and 1440p Low delivers 157 FPS.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming?

A: Yes, but with compromises. At 3840x2160, High settings produce 68 FPS average, Medium produces 90 FPS, and Low produces 116 FPS. Ultra settings drop to 64 FPS. For a locked 60+ experience, Medium or High at 4K is viable; Ultra may dip below 60 in demanding scenes.

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 scores 14,769 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,085 in single-core. Its average benchmark score of 46,062 is within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4364P (45,970) and 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 7303 (45,960). It trails the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098) by 0.1%.

Q: Is the GPU competitive with other high-end cards?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's average benchmark score of 31,087 is 1.9% below the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676) and 1.4% below the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532). It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 (31,206), trailing by only 0.4%.

Q: Does the game favor CPU or GPU performance?

A: The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 194 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 64 FPS. The scaling pattern indicates the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU is strong enough to avoid being a bottleneck at 1080p.

Q: What is the CPU's memory configuration?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing a clear picture of performance scaling.

1920x1080:

• Low: 194 FPS average
• Medium: 151 FPS average (min 129, max 174)
• High: 114 FPS average
• Ultra: 108 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 157 FPS average
• Medium: 122 FPS average (min 104, max 140)
• High: 92 FPS average
• Ultra: 87 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 116 FPS average
• Medium: 90 FPS average (min 77, max 104)
• High: 68 FPS average
• Ultra: 64 FPS average

The Medium settings entries are the only ones with min and max FPS data, so we can use those to judge frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range from 129 to 174 FPS shows a 45 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 104 to 140 FPS (36 FPS spread). At 4K Medium, the range is 77 to 104 FPS (27 FPS spread). This tightening of the range as resolution increases suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU's workload becomes more consistent, reducing frame time variance relative to the average.

The step from Medium to High at each resolution is significant: a 24.5% FPS drop at 1080p (151 to 114), a 24.6% drop at 1440p (122 to 92), and a 24.4% drop at 4K (90 to 68). The consistency of this drop across resolutions indicates that the High preset adds a similar relative GPU load regardless of pixel count. In contrast, the step from High to Ultra is much smaller: 5.3% at 1080p (114 to 108), 5.4% at 1440p (92 to 87), and 5.9% at 4K (68 to 64). The Ultra preset appears to add diminishing returns in terms of visual quality versus performance cost.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component clearly. At Low settings, moving from 1080p (194 FPS) to 1440p (157 FPS) costs 19.1% performance, and moving to 4K (116 FPS) costs 40.2% from 1080p. At Ultra settings, the same progression goes from 1080p (108 FPS) to 1440p (87 FPS) to 4K (64 FPS), representing a 19.4% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 40.7% drop from 1080p to 4K.

The consistency of these percentage drops across different settings is telling. Whether on Low or Ultra, the resolution scaling penalty is nearly identical: roughly 19% from 1080p to 1440p and roughly 40% from 1080p to 4K. This pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to stay relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU would be the bottleneck regardless of pixel count. Instead, the frame rate drops proportionally with the increase in pixel count, which is the signature of the GPU being the constraining resource.

At 1080p Low, the combo hits 194 FPS, which is high enough that the CPU's single-thread performance (2,085 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is likely still sufficient to feed the GPU. The CPU's 14 cores and 14 threads at up to 5.00 GHz boost provide ample headroom for the game's simulation logic. The fact that the FPS scales so predictably with resolution suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting, and the CPU is not artificially capping performance.

This has practical implications: if you want higher FPS at 4K, upgrading the GPU would yield more benefit than upgrading the CPU. The data shows the GPU is the bottleneck across all settings at 4K, and even at 1080p, the GPU is likely the primary limiter given the strong CPU scores.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture on TSMC's 3nm process. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU features 24 MB of shared L3 cache, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 192 KB of L1 cache per core. It supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes on the Intel Socket 1851 platform.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 14,769 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,085 in single-core. It posts a PassMark single-thread score of 4,516 and a multi-thread score of 37,816. The multi-thread performance is solid for a 14-thread processor, placing it at the 89th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 46,062 is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030) and 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098), showing it trades blows with high-end laptop and desktop chips from previous generations.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, including flight physics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The game is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance, and the Core Ultra 5 235's boost clock of 5.00 GHz and strong single-core score (2,085 in Cinebench R23 single-core) are advantageous here. The 14 threads provide enough parallel capacity for background tasks, but the game's main thread benefits most from the high clock speed.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is adequate for the game's data streaming needs, though not exceptional. Flight Simulator loads scenery and terrain continuously, and the dual-channel DDR5 setup ensures the GPU receives data without excessive delays. The 24 MB L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed simulation data close to the cores, reducing latency in time-sensitive calculations.

The data indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck in this combo. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 194 FPS, which is well above what most displays can show. Even at 4K Ultra, the CPU's performance is sufficient to keep the GPU fed, as the FPS drop from 1440p to 4K (23.0% at Ultra) closely matches the pixel count increase (2.25x). If the CPU were struggling, we would see a smaller FPS drop at higher resolutions because the GPU would be waiting on the CPU. Instead, the scaling is consistent with a GPU-limited scenario.

The CPU's 14 cores and 14 threads (no hyperthreading) mean it has fewer threads than some rivals, but for this game, that does not appear to matter. The measured FPS results speak for themselves: this processor, paired with the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, delivers a top-10% combo ranking in Flight Simulator. The CPU's 89th percentile standing among all CPUs, combined with the GPU's 76th percentile standing, produces a balanced system where neither component severely limits the other.