Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to Microsoft Flight Simulator, a configuration that relies on a 3.40 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock to handle the simulation's heavy single-threaded physics and scenery processing. This CPU, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node from TSMC, sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating strong overall performance that aligns well with the demands of a flight simulator that must process terrain, weather, and aircraft systems in real time.

The 14 threads operate without hyperthreading, meaning each core handles one thread, yet the benchmark data shows this is not a limitation in this title. The CPU's L3 cache totals 24 MB shared, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, providing ample on-die storage for the repetitive geometry and texture data that flight simulators stream continuously. The PassMark multithread score of 37,816 and single-thread score of 4,516 place this processor in a competitive position, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (0.1% higher average score) and the Intel Core i9-13900HX (0.1% lower average score), demonstrating that the Ultra 5 235 is essentially performance-equivalent to these established parts.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the single-thread performance is critical because the simulation's core loop—aircraft physics, flight dynamics, and input processing—runs largely on one or two threads. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,085 and multi-core score of 14,769 suggest that while the CPU can handle the parallel tasks like terrain streaming and AI traffic, its single-core capability is what enables the frame rates seen at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. At 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 209 FPS, a figure that indicates the CPU is feeding the RTX 4080 SUPER with enough data to avoid stalling the render pipeline.

The 65W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth further position this CPU as a capable partner for the RTX 4080 SUPER. In a game where draw calls for ground objects and airport infrastructure can spike, the 14 cores provide enough parallelism to handle these background tasks without stealing resources from the main simulation thread. The benchmark results at 4K Ultra, where the CPU has less relative influence, still show 69 FPS, proving that even in GPU-bound scenarios, the processor does not become a limiting factor that drags performance below playable levels.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, based on the Ada Lovelace architecture and the AD103 chip, provides 16 GB of GDDR6X memory across a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads vast swaths of photogrammetry, high-resolution satellite imagery, and detailed aircraft models into VRAM. The 16 GB capacity ensures that even at 4K Ultra settings, the GPU does not spill over into system memory, which would cause stuttering and frame drops.

The GPU runs at a 2,295 MHz base clock with a 2,550 MHz boost clock, and the memory operates at 1,438 MHz (23 Gbps effective). With 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units, the RTX 4080 SUPER offers substantial raw compute power—52.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance—that translates directly into the pixel throughput needed for dense cockpit displays and complex terrain rendering. The 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores also support ray-traced shadows and reflections, though Microsoft Flight Simulator's default presets rely more heavily on traditional rasterization.

The GPU's 86th percentile ranking among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 54,209, places it just 0.1% below the standard RTX 4080 and 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X. In practical terms for this flight simulator, the RTX 4080 SUPER demonstrates its capability through the measured frame rates: at 1080p High settings, it produces 123 FPS, and at 4K High, it still manages 73 FPS. The jump from Low to Ultra settings at 4K—from 125 FPS to 69 FPS—shows that the GPU has headroom to absorb increasing graphical complexity, but the scaling is not linear, suggesting that certain Ultra features disproportionately tax the renderer.

The 320W TDP and triple-slot cooler design indicate that this is a high-power part, and the PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for the memory-heavy workloads of flight simulation. The 112 ROPS handle the final pixel output, and the 816.0 GTexel/s texture rate ensures that the ground textures streaming in during flight do not become blurry or pop in visibly. The GPU's performance in this game is strong across all settings, but the data reveals that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU becomes more influential, while at 4K Ultra, the GPU is the primary constraint.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU dominance at higher settings and CPU influence at lower ones. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 209 FPS, which drops to 169 FPS at 1440p (a 19.1% reduction) and 125 FPS at 4K (a 40.2% reduction from 1080p). This scaling suggests that even at Low settings, the GPU is beginning to feel the pixel count increase, but the relatively high frame rates indicate that neither component is fully saturated.

Moving to Medium settings, the frame rates at 1080p (163 FPS), 1440p (131 FPS), and 4K (97 FPS) show a similar proportional drop: 19.6% from 1080p to 1440p and 40.5% from 1080p to 4K. The consistency of these percentages across Low and Medium suggests that the workload is scaling predictably with resolution, a hallmark of a balanced system where the GPU is the primary limiter but the CPU is keeping pace.

At High settings, the frame rates fall to 123 FPS at 1080p, 99 FPS at 1440p, and 73 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.5%, and from 1080p to 4K is 40.7%, maintaining the same scaling pattern. However, the absolute numbers are lower, indicating that the High preset adds enough graphical complexity—likely higher-quality textures, more detailed shadows, and increased draw distances—that the GPU's workload grows beyond just the pixel count.

Ultra settings show the most significant impact: 117 FPS at 1080p, 94 FPS at 1440p, and 69 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.7%, and from 1080p to 4K is 41.0%. Interestingly, the percentage drops remain nearly constant across all settings, which indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering path is resolution-bound rather than settings-bound in terms of scaling. The limiting component shifts subtly: at 1080p Low, the CPU's single-thread performance likely caps frame rates around 209 FPS, while at 4K Ultra, the GPU's pixel and texture processing limits output to 69 FPS.

The data suggests that this combo is well-balanced for 1440p and 4K gaming, where the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, but at 1080p, the CPU's 14 cores and 5.00 GHz boost clock keep the system from being severely CPU-limited. The minimum FPS recorded at Medium settings—138 at 1080p, 112 at 1440p, and 82 at 4K—shows that even in demanding moments over dense cities or complex airports, the frame rate does not collapse, indicating that both components have sufficient headroom to handle transient spikes in workload.

# FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate is 209 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is followed by 169 FPS at 2560x1440 Low and 125 FPS at 3840x2160 Low.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 compare to its nearest rivals in overall CPU performance?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score of 46,062 places it 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030) and 0.1% below the Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098), while being 0.2% above both the AMD EPYC 4364P and AMD EPYC 7303. This indicates performance parity with these competing processors.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the combo delivers 117 FPS at 1080p and 69 FPS at 4K, representing a 41.0% reduction in average frame rate. The minimum FPS at 1440p Medium is 112 FPS, while at 4K Medium it drops to 82 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER's benchmark score compare to the standard RTX 4080?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 54,209, which is 0.1% lower than the standard RTX 4080's score of 54,247. The SUPER is also 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828) and 2.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698).

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER ranks 180th out of 2,996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 6% of all configurations tested.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU become the limiting factor at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K Ultra, where the average frame rate is 69 FPS. The CPU's single-thread performance (PassMark single-thread score of 4,516) is sufficient to feed the GPU at this resolution, but the GPU's rendering workload at 4K Ultra caps performance.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER achieves a rank of 180 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 6% of all configurations. This strong ranking reflects the balance between the CPU's high single-thread performance and the GPU's substantial memory bandwidth and compute resources.

The rank is particularly notable given that the CPU sits in the 89th percentile of all processors and the GPU in the 86th percentile of all graphics cards. When combined, these components produce a system that handles the game's demanding flight simulation workloads without significant bottlenecks. The measured frame rates at 4K Ultra (69 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (117 FPS) demonstrate that this combo can drive high refresh rate monitors at lower resolutions while still maintaining playable frame rates at 4K.

The 2,996 combos tested include a wide range of hardware configurations, and ranking 180th means this pairing outperforms the vast majority of systems. The CPU's nearest rivals—the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core i9-13900HX—have nearly identical average scores, suggesting that swapping the Ultra 5 235 for either of these would not materially change the gaming experience in this title. Similarly, the GPU's closest competitor, the standard RTX 4080, is virtually indistinguishable in performance, with only a 0.1% difference in average benchmark score.

This ranking underscores that for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the combination of a strong single-threaded CPU and a high-end GPU with ample VRAM is the recipe for top-tier performance. The 16 GB of VRAM on the RTX 4080 SUPER is particularly valuable, as the game's high-resolution textures can consume significant memory, and the CPU's 24 MB L3 cache helps reduce latency when streaming terrain data.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator are as follows, organized by resolution and settings:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 209 FPS average
• Medium: 163 FPS average (138 FPS minimum, 187 FPS maximum)
• High: 123 FPS average
• Ultra: 117 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 169 FPS average
• Medium: 131 FPS average (112 FPS minimum, 151 FPS maximum)
• High: 99 FPS average
• Ultra: 94 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 125 FPS average
• Medium: 97 FPS average (82 FPS minimum, 111 FPS maximum)
• High: 73 FPS average
• Ultra: 69 FPS average

The data shows that the Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, providing insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range from 138 to 187 FPS indicates some variability, but the 163 FPS average suggests smooth gameplay. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 112–151 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it tightens further to 82–111 FPS. This pattern indicates that as resolution increases, the frame rate becomes more consistent, likely because the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck and reduces the impact of CPU-driven frame time spikes.

The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows the cost of increasing graphical fidelity. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 92 FPS (from 209 to 117), a 44% reduction. At 1440p, the same settings change costs 75 FPS (from 169 to 94), a 44.4% reduction. At 4K, the cost is 56 FPS (from 125 to 69), a 44.8% reduction. These consistent percentages indicate that the Ultra preset adds a proportional workload regardless of resolution, meaning the GPU is handling the extra effects and texture quality uniformly.

The jump from Medium to High at 1080p (163 to 123 FPS, a 24.5% reduction) is more significant than the jump from High to Ultra (123 to 117 FPS, a 4.9% reduction), suggesting that the High preset introduces features that are more demanding than those added in Ultra. This pattern holds across all resolutions, with the Medium-to-High transition costing roughly 24-26% performance, while High-to-Ultra costs only 4-5%.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1080p displays, the High preset at 123 FPS offers an excellent balance between visual fidelity and performance, providing smooth gameplay that exceeds the refresh rate of most standard monitors. The Ultra preset at 117 FPS is only 4.9% slower, so if the display supports it, Ultra is a viable choice for maximum visual quality without sacrificing responsiveness.

For 1440p, the High preset at 99 FPS is the recommended choice for users with 100Hz or higher refresh rate monitors, as it delivers near-maximum visual quality while maintaining a frame rate that keeps the experience fluid. The Medium preset at 131 FPS is also strong, and the 24.5% performance increase over High may be preferable for competitive or fast-paced flight scenarios, though the visual difference between Medium and High in flight simulators often involves texture detail and shadow quality that can be noticeable during low-altitude flying.

At 4K, the Medium preset at 97 FPS is the standout recommendation, as it provides a frame rate close to 100 FPS while still delivering respectable visual quality. The 4K High preset at 73 FPS is acceptable for slower, more scenic flights, but the 33% performance drop from Medium to High may cause judder during fast maneuvers or when flying over dense urban areas. The Ultra preset at 69 FPS is only suitable for users who prioritize visual fidelity above all else and are comfortable with frame rates in the 60s.

The minimum FPS data at Medium settings—138 at 1080p, 112 at 1440p, and 82 at 4K—indicates that this preset offers the most consistent frame times, with the smallest gap between average and minimum FPS. This consistency is valuable in flight simulation, where sudden drops in frame rate can disrupt the experience during landing approaches or when panning the camera. For users who cannot tolerate frame dips, Medium is the safest choice across all resolutions.

Ultimately, the data suggests that the sweet spot for this combo is 1440p High or 4K Medium, depending on whether the user prioritizes resolution or visual effects. The 1080p High and Ultra presets are also excellent, but they leave significant performance headroom that could be better utilized at higher resolutions. The measured FPS values support these recommendations by showing that the combo delivers playable frame rates at all tested settings, but the consistency and headroom provided by Medium and High presets make them the most balanced options.