Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 pairs a 14-core, 14-thread Arrow Lake design with a 5.10 GHz boost clock. The absence of hyper-threading means the CPU relies on physical cores and high frequency, which suits Microsoft Flight Simulator’s need for strong single-thread performance. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support provide the bandwidth necessary for the simulator’s terrain streaming and complex flight models. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648 and multi-core score of 32924 place it in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, indicating it is not the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. Compared to its nearest rivals, the Ultra 5 245 sits within a tight margin: it trails the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G by 0.4% and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 by 0.5% in average benchmark scores, while leading the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H by 0.6% and the Intel Core i5-14600K by 0.8%. This clustering suggests the processor delivers performance competitive with mid-range and high-end desktop chips, providing a solid foundation for the RX 6600 to operate without severe CPU-induced frame pacing issues. The 65W TDP and 3 nm process node indicate high efficiency, though the relevant metric for gaming is the consistent delivery of high clock speeds across the 14 cores.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a RDNA 2.0 part with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its game clock of 2044 MHz and boost clock of 2491 MHz drive 1792 shading units, producing 8.928 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU handles the heavy lifting of rendering dense scenery, weather effects, and cockpit displays. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor at higher resolutions, as the simulator’s detailed textures and long draw distances can consume significant memory. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 15096 places it in the 63rd percentile against all GPUs, and its nearest rivals—the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (0% delta), GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (-0.1%), and Tesla K20m (-0.3%)—show it performs on par with older professional cards and modern mobile parts. The RX 6600’s 132W TDP and dual-slot design make it a capable air-cooled solution, but the measured FPS data reveals its limits: at 4K Ultra, it averages just 31 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiter when pushing extreme visual fidelity. The 8 GB memory may also constrain performance at 4K, where texture streaming can exceed the available frame buffer, leading to reduced average frame rates compared to lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 achieves a rank of 2316 out of 2996 total tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The rank places this pairing in the lower 23% of tested systems, indicating that while the CPU is above-average, the GPU holds the overall performance back. The data shows this is a GPU-limited pairing: the CPU’s 90th percentile ranking contrasts sharply with the GPU’s 63rd percentile, and the combo’s rank reflects the weaker component. In practical terms, this combo sits below the median tested system, meaning many other configurations with faster GPUs or more VRAM will deliver higher frame rates. However, the rank is not a judgment of playability—it simply quantifies the aggregate performance across all tested resolutions and settings. The combo’s position suggests that users seeking higher frame rates would benefit more from upgrading the GPU than the CPU, as the Ultra 5 245 provides ample headroom to drive a more powerful graphics card. The rank also implies that the RX 6600’s 8 GB VRAM and compute throughput are the limiting factors in achieving higher scores in this simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the combo starts at 92 FPS on Low settings, drops to 72 FPS on Medium (with min/max of 61/82), reaches 54 FPS on High, and falls to 51 FPS on Ultra. This 1080p progression shows a steep decline from Low to Medium (a 21.7% drop) and a more gradual decline from High to Ultra (a 5.6% drop). The 1080p results are all playable, with even Ultra settings maintaining above 50 FPS, suggesting the CPU and GPU work well together at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average frame rates decrease consistently: 74 FPS on Low, 58 FPS on Medium (min/max of 49/66), 43 FPS on High, and 41 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 21.6%, similar to 1080p, but the High to Ultra transition is only a 4.7% reduction. At 1440p, the Ultra setting dips below 42 FPS, which may feel less smooth for fast-paced flight maneuvers, but the Medium setting at 58 FPS offers a solid balance.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes more constrained: 55 FPS on Low, 43 FPS on Medium (min/max of 36/49), 32 FPS on High, and 31 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show the GPU struggling, with High and Ultra both averaging below 33 FPS, which is below the threshold for a consistently smooth experience. The min FPS of 36 on Medium at 4K indicates occasional stutters, and the Ultra setting’s 31 FPS average is marginal. The data reveals that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, offering 54 FPS or higher on all settings, while 4K requires Low or Medium settings to maintain playable frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling analysis shows how the limiting component shifts as pixel count increases. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS across all settings drops by approximately 20-25%: for example, Low settings go from 92 to 74 FPS (a 19.6% decrease), and Ultra goes from 51 to 41 FPS (a 19.6% decrease). This consistent percentage drop indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the CPU has sufficient headroom to handle the increased resolution without major frame rate penalties. From 1440p to 4K, the drop becomes more severe: Low settings go from 74 to 55 FPS (a 25.7% decrease), Medium goes from 58 to 43 FPS (a 25.9% decrease), and High goes from 43 to 32 FPS (a 25.6% decrease). The near-uniform scaling across settings suggests that the RX 6600’s memory bandwidth and compute resources are saturated at 4K, and the CPU is not limiting the frame rate. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions, but the effect is magnified at 4K where the 8 GB VRAM may also cause texture thrashing. The scaling from 1080p to 4K results in an average FPS reduction of approximately 40-45% across all settings, indicating that users should expect a significant performance hit when moving to higher-resolution displays. The consistency of the scaling across different quality presets confirms that this is a GPU-bound scenario, and any CPU overclocking or upgrade would yield minimal gains.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the measured data shows an average of 51 FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, which is above the 30 FPS playability threshold, though not as smooth as the 72 FPS achieved on Medium settings.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low setting achieves 92 FPS and Medium achieves 72 FPS, both above 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low setting (74 FPS) exceeds 60 FPS, while Medium (58 FPS) falls short.

Q: How does the GPU’s VRAM affect performance at 4K?

A: The 8 GB VRAM on the RX 6600 is likely a limiting factor at 3840x2160, where High and Ultra settings average 32 and 31 FPS respectively, while Medium (43 FPS) and Low (55 FPS) are more playable, indicating that texture memory pressure increases with settings.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 63rd percentile, and the resolution scaling shows consistent FPS drops that align with GPU-bound behavior.

Q: How does this combo compare to the nearest rival CPU and GPU pairings?

A: The CPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, has an average score 0.5% higher, and the GPU’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, has an identical average score, suggesting that swapping to these parts would yield negligible performance differences.

Q: What is the minimum FPS observed in the measured data?

A: The lowest recorded minimum FPS is 36, which occurs at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The min/max data is only available for Medium settings across all resolutions, showing 61/82 at 1080p, 49/66 at 1440p, and 36/49 at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the Medium preset provides the best balance, delivering 72 FPS average with a minimum of 61 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay without significant visual compromises. The High preset at 54 FPS is also viable, but the 18 FPS drop from Medium to High does not justify the visual gains for most users. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset again offers the best experience, averaging 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS, which is playable but may show minor stutters in dense areas. The Low preset at 74 FPS is smoother but sacrifices visual fidelity, while High and Ultra (43 and 41 FPS) are below the smooth threshold. For 3840x2160, the Low preset at 55 FPS is the only setting that provides a consistently playable experience, as Medium (43 FPS) and High (32 FPS) fall below 45 FPS, and Ultra (31 FPS) is marginal. The data suggests that the Medium preset is the sweet spot across all resolutions, offering the highest settings that maintain an average FPS above 40, with 1080p Medium being the most comfortable option. Users prioritizing smoothness over visuals should select Low, while those with 1440p displays should stick to Medium, as the step to High yields only a 15 FPS gain at 1080p but a 15 FPS loss at 1440p. The Ultra preset is only recommended for 1080p users who accept 51 FPS, as the visual upgrade from High is minimal based on the FPS delta.