Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT delivers a very playable Microsoft Flight Simulator experience at 1080p, but the data shows a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs. This combination lands in the lower third of tested combos, yet its specific frame rates reveal a clear path to smooth gameplay if you adjust settings appropriately. The benchmark results indicate a system where the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU provides ample headroom for the simulation's heavy single-threaded load.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data shows a predictable and severe drop as pixel count increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario in a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 101 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low drops that to 81 FPS, and at 3840x2160 at Low it falls to 60 FPS. This scaling pattern reveals that the RX 6600 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are being saturated at higher resolutions, despite the game's settings being at their lowest.

The transition from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a similar proportional decline, dropping from 59 FPS to 47 FPS. However, the hardest hit is the jump from 1440p to 4K. At High settings, the average frame rate plummets from 47 FPS at 1440p to 35 FPS at 4K. This is a 25% reduction for a single resolution step, indicating that the GPU's pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors. The RX 6600 XT's pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s is simply not enough to maintain fluid motion at 4K with higher fidelity presets.

The Medium preset, which is the only one with complete min/max data, shows the scaling most clearly. At 1080p, the average is 78 FPS with a minimum of 66 FPS. At 1440p, the average drops to 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS. At 4K, the average is 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS. The fact that the minimum frame rates stay relatively close to the averages suggests that the frame pacing is consistent, but the overall performance ceiling is being lowered by the GPU. The data strongly suggests that the Core Ultra 5 245 is not the constraint at 4K; the RX 6600 XT is. The CPU's high single-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648, is sufficient to feed the GPU even at lower resolutions where the frame rate is higher.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested configurations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT achieves a comboRankInGame of 2058 out of 2996 total combos. This places it in the 31st percentile of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning roughly 69% of tested combinations deliver higher average frame rates. This rank is a direct consequence of the graphics card's position in the hierarchy; the RX 6600 XT sits at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is much stronger, sitting at the 90th percentile of all CPUs.

Examining the nearest rivals provides context for the GPU's performance. The RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score of 24442 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER, which has an average score of 24170 and a deltaPct of 1.1%. This means the RX 6600 XT is effectively on par with that older flagship card in raw compute. It is also 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, though those are much older and less capable parts. The data indicates that the GPU is the anchor for this combo's overall ranking. The CPU, by contrast, is a top-tier performer. Its average benchmark score of 48995 is only 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, while being 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K. This shows the CPU is not holding the system back; the GPU's mid-range standing is what drags the combo rank down to the 2058th position.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data makes it clear which settings preset provides the best experience for this hardware combination. For a 60 FPS target, the Low preset is the only option that consistently delivers at 1080p and 1440p, hitting 101 FPS and 81 FPS respectively. However, playing a flight simulator at Low settings sacrifices significant visual fidelity in a genre where scenery detail is paramount. The Medium preset offers a far better balance. At 1080p, it achieves 78 FPS average, which is well above the playable threshold and smooth on most displays. At 1440p, it drops to 63 FPS, still a solidly playable experience. The minimum frame rates of 66 FPS at 1080p and 54 FPS at 1440p confirm that the experience remains fluid without severe stutters.

The High preset is playable at 1080p with an average of 59 FPS, but the 1440p result of 47 FPS is starting to feel less smooth for a simulation that benefits from consistent frame times. The Ultra preset is not recommended for this combo at any resolution above 1080p. At 1080p, it hits 56 FPS, which is borderline, but at 1440p (45 FPS) and 4K (33 FPS), it falls below the threshold for a consistently enjoyable experience. Given the data, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 is the sweet spot. It provides a 78 FPS average with a 66 FPS minimum, ensuring smooth flight over detailed terrain without pushing the GPU to its breaking point. If you have a 1440p monitor, the Medium preset is still viable at 63 FPS average, but you will be closer to the edge of the GPU's capability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

This section provides the exact measured frame rates for every tested configuration.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 101 FPS average.
• Medium: 78 FPS average, with a minimum of 66 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS.
• High: 59 FPS average.
• Ultra: 56 FPS average.

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 81 FPS average.
• Medium: 63 FPS average, with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 73 FPS.
• High: 47 FPS average.
• Ultra: 45 FPS average.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 60 FPS average.
• Medium: 47 FPS average, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS.
• High: 35 FPS average.
• Ultra: 33 FPS average.

The data shows a consistent hierarchy: Low > Medium > High > Ultra at every resolution. The gap between Medium and High is significant, often representing a 20-25% performance penalty for the visual upgrade. Similarly, the jump from High to Ultra is costly, particularly at 4K where the difference is only 2 FPS (from 35 to 33), suggesting the Ultra preset is simply too demanding for the RX 6600 XT's architecture at that resolution. The performance deltas are most pronounced between 1440p and 4K, reinforcing the GPU's memory bandwidth limitations.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 60 FPS at 1080p with high settings?

A: No, the data shows the High preset at 1080p results in 59 FPS average, which is just shy of the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset comfortably exceeds it at 78 FPS.

Q: What is the highest resolution at which this system can maintain a 60 FPS average?

A: According to the measured data, the system hits a 60 FPS average at 3840x2160 with the Low preset. At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves 81 FPS, and at 1920x1080, the Low preset hits 101 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245's average benchmark score is 48995. It is 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196) and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228). It is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Q: Is the GPU or the CPU the limiting factor in this pairing?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU is in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 70th percentile. The steep FPS drops at higher resolutions are typical of a GPU limitation, not a CPU one.

Q: What is the best settings preset to use for a smooth 1440p experience?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 provides an average of 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS. This is the highest quality preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS at that resolution.

Q: What are the key specs of the RX 6600 XT that affect performance?

A: The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. It has 2048 shading units and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. Its TDP is 160 W.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. For a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its heavy reliance on single-threaded performance for flight dynamics and scenery loading, the CPU's strong single-core capability is essential. The benchmark data confirms this strength, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4394. These figures place the CPU in the 90th percentile of all tested CPUs, meaning it is more than capable of feeding the RX 6600 XT with draw calls and physics calculations.

The CPU's multi-core performance is equally robust, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a Passmark multithread score of 38706. This headroom is beneficial for the background tasks and AI traffic simulation that Flight Simulator processes. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache also helps reduce latency when accessing frequently used data. In this specific combo, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The evidence is in the resolution scaling; if the CPU were the limit, we would see similar frame rates across all resolutions. Instead, the FPS drops dramatically from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU's rendering capabilities are being maxed out. The CPU has the performance headroom to handle higher frame rates, but the GPU cannot deliver them. This is a classic case of a high-end CPU paired with a mid-range GPU, where the GPU dictates the overall gaming performance in graphically intensive scenarios.