Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT shows a system that is capable but requires careful settings selection to hit smooth frame rates. The results across four presets and three resolutions reveal a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and playability, with the 8 GB VRAM and mid-range GPU being the primary bottlenecks at higher settings. The following analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to provide a methodical look at how this combination performs.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear hierarchy in performance across the four available presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 105 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo. Medium drops to 81 FPS, High to 61 FPS, and Ultra to 58 FPS. For a flight simulator where smoothness is critical for immersion, the Medium preset at 1080p appears to be the sweet spot, offering a substantial 20 FPS improvement over High while likely retaining most visual quality. The Low preset, while fastest, sacrifices too much detail for the marginal gain over Medium.

At 2560x1440, the pattern remains consistent. Low yields 84 FPS, Medium drops to 66 FPS, High to 49 FPS, and Ultra falls to 47 FPS. Here, Medium is again the recommended choice, as it remains above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. While High and Ultra are playable, they dip below 50 FPS, which can be noticeable in a game that requires precise control. The 4K results are the most demanding, with only the Low preset achieving a playable average of 62 FPS. Medium manages 48 FPS, while High and Ultra fall to 36 and 35 FPS respectively.

The data indicates that the best experience for this combo is the Medium preset at either 1080p or 1440p. It provides a balanced frame rate that stays above 60 FPS at 1440p and 80 FPS at 1080p. For users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate, the High preset at 1080p is the highest setting that maintains an average above 60 FPS. Ultra provides no significant advantage over High in terms of measured FPS, yielding only a 3 FPS difference at 1080p and 2 FPS at 1440p, making it a poor choice for the performance cost.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the limiting factor in this configuration. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the data shows it struggles with the highest settings. The GPU's boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz are respectable for its class, but the raw compute power of 10.79 TFLOPS is not enough to handle the Ultra preset at higher resolutions.

The benchmark results for the GPU show it is a mid-range performer, sitting in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and AMD FirePro D300, which are older professional cards, indicating that the RX 6650 XT is positioned for mainstream gaming. The measured FPS data confirms this, as the GPU fails to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p High or 4K Medium. The VRAM capacity is also a concern at 4K, where the Ultra preset likely exceeds the 8 GB buffer, contributing to the significant frame rate drop from Low to Medium (62 to 48 FPS). The GPU's performance is the primary reason why the Low preset is the only playable option at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, which indicates a classic GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 105 at 1080p to 84 at 1440p, a 20% decrease, and then to 62 at 4K, a further 26% decrease. This scaling is expected as the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, but the GPU cannot keep up with the increased load.

At Medium settings, the drop is from 81 FPS at 1080p to 66 FPS at 1440p (an 18.5% decrease) and then to 48 FPS at 4K (a 27% decrease). The High preset shows a similar pattern: 61 to 49 FPS (19.7% decrease) and then to 36 FPS (26.5% decrease). The Ultra preset is the most demanding, dropping from 58 FPS at 1080p to 47 FPS at 1440p (19% decrease) and then to 35 FPS at 4K (25.5% decrease). The consistent percentage drops across all settings strongly suggest that the GPU is the sole limiting component; a CPU-bound scenario would show less degradation at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo shows its best performance. The Low preset averages 105 FPS, providing a very smooth experience. Medium averages 81 FPS with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS, indicating good frame pacing. High averages 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target. Ultra averages 58 FPS, which is slightly below the ideal threshold but still playable. The data shows a clear step-down in performance as settings increase, with the gap between Low and Medium (24 FPS) being the largest single jump.

At 2560x1440, performance decreases across the board. Low averages 84 FPS, still a solid playable frame rate. Medium averages 66 FPS with a minimum of 56 FPS and a maximum of 75 FPS, which is acceptable but shows more variance. High averages 49 FPS, which is noticeably less smooth. Ultra averages 47 FPS, nearly identical to High, suggesting that the Ultra preset offers little benefit at this resolution for the performance cost. The difference between Low and Medium is 18 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is severely stressed. Low averages 62 FPS, which is just playable. Medium averages 48 FPS with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS, showing significant frame drops. High averages 36 FPS and Ultra averages 35 FPS, both of which are too low for a smooth experience. The gap between Low and Medium is 14 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, reinforcing that the Ultra preset is not worth the performance hit.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1902 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all configurations, which is consistent with the measured FPS data. The combo's percentile ranking is below the GPU's individual percentile of 65, indicating that the pairing is not optimal for this particular game. The CPU is a strong performer, ranking in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, but it is held back by the GPU.

The ranking suggests that while the CPU has the headroom to handle the game's complex flight models and physics calculations, the GPU cannot render the scenery fast enough to take advantage of it. The deltaPct values for the CPU's nearest rivals show it is closely matched with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (-0.4%) and AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (-0.5%), but the overall combo ranking is dragged down by the GPU. In practical terms, this means that users with this combo will need to make significant compromises on visual settings to achieve playable frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 105 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset.

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: At 4K, only the Low preset achieves a playable average of 62 FPS. The Medium preset averages 48 FPS, while High and Ultra average 36 and 35 FPS respectively, which are not smooth enough for a good experience.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High in terms of performance?

A: The Ultra preset provides almost no benefit over High. At 1080p, the difference is only 3 FPS (58 vs 61), and at 1440p it is 2 FPS (47 vs 49). At 4K, the difference is just 1 FPS (35 vs 36).

Q: What is the recommended settings preset for a balance of quality and performance?

A: The Medium preset is the best choice. It delivers 81 FPS at 1080p and 66 FPS at 1440p, with minimums of 69 FPS and 56 FPS respectively, ensuring a smooth experience without the heavy visual sacrifices of the Low preset.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested configurations?

A: This combo ranks 1902 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle tier of all configurations.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is a strong performer, but the resolution scaling data shows a consistent FPS drop that is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

CPU Role

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. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This processor is a strong performer in general benchmarks, ranking in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its multi-core performance is highlighted by a Cinebench R23 score of 32924, and its single-core score of 4648 is also robust.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, including flight physics, weather, and AI traffic. The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck in this pairing. The FPS drops are consistently tied to resolution and settings, which are GPU-related. The CPU's high single-thread performance is beneficial for the game's primary thread, and its multi-core capabilities help with background tasks. However, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and mid-range compute power prevent the system from achieving high frame rates. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K, show similar average scores, but the overall combo ranking is limited by the GPU.