Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT in a combination that ranks 2210th out of 2996 tested configurations. The measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets show a system that is firmly anchored by its graphics card, with the CPU providing ample headroom for the simulator's demanding flight dynamics and terrain streaming. The data indicates a playable experience at lower resolutions and settings, but the GPU becomes the decisive bottleneck as resolution and visual fidelity increase.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory on the Intel Socket 1851 platform. The processor includes 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Its integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, though the discrete Radeon GPU handles all rendering in this configuration.

In terms of raw compute, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4648 in single-core, placing it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 48995 is remarkably close to its nearest rivals: it trails the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G by 0.4% (49196), sits 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228), and leads the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% (48698) and the Intel Core i5-14600K by 0.8% (48618). This places the CPU in a performance tier where it can comfortably feed a mid-range graphics card in a flight simulator, which typically relies more heavily on single-thread performance for its main simulation loop.

The measured FPS data reveals that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this pairing. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 98 FPS on average, which suggests the processor can push far beyond what the GPU can deliver at higher settings. The CPU's high boost clock of 5.10 GHz and strong single-core score of 4648 in Cinebench R23 are well-suited for Microsoft Flight Simulator's complex flight model and AI traffic calculations. Even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is clearly saturated, the frame rate does not collapse in a way that indicates a CPU stall; rather, it scales predictably with resolution, pointing to a GPU-bound scenario across the board.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT holds the 2210th position out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower third of all configurations, which is consistent with the GPU's age and tier. The Radeon RX 5700 XT sits at the 59th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16361. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351, barely 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408, 0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16415, 0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504, 0.9% ahead). The fact that a modern flagship like the RTX 5090 D V2 is only 0.9% ahead in synthetic benchmarks underscores that the RX 5700 XT's raw compute is still competitive in certain workloads, but its 8 GB VRAM and RDNA 1.0 architecture hold it back in modern titles.

Given that the CPU ranks at the 90th percentile globally while the GPU ranks at the 59th percentile, the combo's 2210th position out of 2996 clearly reflects the GPU's limitations in this specific game. The data shows that many other combinations with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would outperform this pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its heavy graphics load. The rank also suggests that this combo is better suited for 1080p or 1440p play rather than 4K, as the measured frame rates at 4K dip below 60 FPS even at Low settings.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions provides a clear picture of the system's scaling behavior. At 1080p, the average frame rates range from 98 FPS at Low to 55 FPS at Ultra, with High at 58 FPS and Medium at 77 FPS. Moving to 1440p, the averages drop to 79 FPS at Low, 62 FPS at Medium, 46 FPS at High, and 44 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, the figures fall further to 59 FPS at Low, 46 FPS at Medium, 34 FPS at High, and 33 FPS at Ultra.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a drop of approximately 19% at Low settings (98 to 79 FPS), while the drop from 1440p to 4K at Low is about 25% (79 to 59 FPS). At Ultra settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 20% (55 to 44 FPS), and from 1440p to 4K it is 25% (44 to 33 FPS). This consistent pattern of diminishing returns with increasing resolution indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's performance headroom is evident because the frame rates scale almost linearly with pixel count, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload.

The data also shows that the Medium preset at 4K achieves 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 FPS and a maximum of 52 FPS, which is the only 4K setting with reported min/max values. This suggests that even at 4K, the system can maintain a playable frame rate at Medium settings, but the 34 FPS at High and 33 FPS at Ultra are below the 60 FPS target that many players prefer. The 1080p results, particularly the 77 FPS at Medium and 98 FPS at Low, confirm that the CPU is not holding back performance, as these numbers are well above what a weaker processor would deliver in this simulator.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a 60+ FPS average?

A: At 1080p, the system averages 98 FPS at Low and 77 FPS at Medium, both above 60 FPS. At 1440p, only the Low preset achieves a 60+ FPS average at 79 FPS. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS on average, with the highest being 59 FPS at Low.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its nearest CPU rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, which is 0.4% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196) and 0.5% lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228). It is 0.6% higher than the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698) and 0.8% higher than the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618).

Q: What is the GPU's synthetic benchmark position relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon RX 5700 XT has an average score of 16361, placing it 0.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351) and 0.3% below the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408). It is also 0.3% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16415) and 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504).

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance at 4K Ultra in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows the GPU is the limiting component. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 33, which is a 40% drop from the 55 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The CPU's high single-core score of 4648 in Cinebench R23 and its 90th percentile ranking indicate it has sufficient headroom, while the GPU's 59th percentile ranking and 8 GB VRAM constrain high-resolution performance.

Q: What is the only 4K setting with reported minimum and maximum frame rates?

A: The Medium preset at 3840x2160 is the only 4K setting with min/max data, showing an average of 46 FPS, a minimum of 39 FPS, and a maximum of 52 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank overall in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT combination ranks 2210th out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the lower third of all configurations tested for this game.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 10 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, with a base clock of 1605 MHz, a game clock of 1755 MHz, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its compute capabilities include 9.754 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 121.9 GPixel/s, with a texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s. The card has a TDP of 225 W and requires a 550 W power supply, with a dual-slot design and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM is a critical factor. The game is known for streaming large textures and terrain data, and at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the VRAM capacity is likely a limiting factor, contributing to the 34 FPS and 33 FPS averages respectively. The GPU's 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 16361 reflect a mid-range card that was released in 2019 and is now end-of-life, with its successor being Navi II. The synthetic benchmarks show strong DirectX 11 performance (116 in Passmark) but weaker DirectX 12 results (64 in Passmark), which may explain the sub-60 FPS performance at higher settings where the game's DX12 path is more demanding.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's performance scales predictably with resolution. At 1080p Low, the card delivers 98 FPS, which is a solid result for a flight simulator. However, at 4K Ultra, the 33 FPS average is well below the 60 FPS target, and even at 4K Low, the 59 FPS average is marginal. The GPU's 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p play but becomes a bottleneck at 4K, where higher resolutions require more memory throughput. The card's 1905 MHz boost clock and 1755 MHz game clock provide adequate performance for medium settings at 1440p, where the system achieves 62 FPS on average.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers a solid 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance. The High preset at 1080p yields 58 FPS, which is playable but below the 60 FPS threshold, while Ultra at 55 FPS is similarly borderline. The Low preset at 98 FPS is the fastest but sacrifices visual fidelity in a game where scenery and cockpit detail matter.

At 1440p, the Medium preset is again the recommended choice, achieving 62 FPS on average with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 71 FPS. This provides a smooth experience with moderate visual quality. The Low preset at 79 FPS is the only other option above 60 FPS, while High at 46 FPS and Ultra at 44 FPS are noticeably less fluid. For players who prioritize frame rate over visuals, Low at 1440p is a viable alternative, but Medium offers a better compromise.

At 4K, the options are limited. The Low preset averages 59 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target and may be acceptable for some players. The Medium preset averages 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 FPS, which is below the ideal threshold but playable for less demanding scenarios. High and Ultra at 34 FPS and 33 FPS respectively are not recommended, as they drop below 35 FPS, which can feel choppy in a simulator where smooth panning is important. Given the data, the best experience at 4K is the Low preset, but players seeking better visuals should consider lowering to 1440p and using Medium for a more consistent frame rate.

Overall, the data suggests that this combo is best used at 1080p or 1440p with Medium settings, where it can maintain a 60+ FPS average. At 4K, the system is limited to Low settings for playable performance, and the 8 GB VRAM and RDNA 1.0 architecture prevent it from handling higher presets at that resolution. The CPU's high benchmark scores indicate that it is not the bottleneck, so any graphical settings changes will primarily affect the GPU load.