Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that drop is highly dependent on the quality preset selected. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 reduces average FPS from 121 to 97, a 24-frame drop, and then further down to 72 at 3840x2160. This progression from 1080p to 4K at Low settings represents a 40% reduction in frame rate, which indicates that even at the lowest graphical fidelity, the rendering workload scales substantially with pixel count.

Moving to Medium settings, the same resolution progression shows 94 FPS at 1080p, 76 at 1440p, and 56 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K here is 38 frames, or roughly 40%, which closely mirrors the Low settings behavior. This consistency suggests that the 6700 XT is the primary limiting factor across these lower presets, as the frame rate scales almost linearly with the pixel throughput required. The Medium preset also provides the only complete min/max FPS data in the measured set, showing a minimum of 80 FPS at 1080p and a minimum of 47 FPS at 4K, which gives some insight into frame time consistency.

At High settings, the resolution scaling becomes more pronounced. The average FPS drops from 71 at 1080p to 57 at 1440p, and then to 42 at 4K. The 1080p to 4K transition here represents a 41% reduction, slightly steeper than the lower presets. This suggests that as the graphical complexity increases, the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are being pushed harder, and the additional pixel load at 4K disproportionately impacts performance. The Ultra preset shows the most severe scaling, with 67 FPS at 1080p, 54 at 1440p, and 40 at 4K — a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K, but the absolute values are already quite low at the starting resolution.

The key observation from the resolution scaling data is that the frame rate reduction from 1080p to 4K stays consistently around 40% regardless of settings preset, which points to a GPU-bound scenario across all tested configurations. The 6700 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth appear sufficient to handle the data throughput at 4K, but the raw compute capacity of 13.21 TFLOPS FP32 becomes the bottleneck. The fact that Ultra at 4K yields only 40 FPS while Low at 1080p yields 121 FPS illustrates the wide operating range of this combination, but also highlights that 4K gaming with this hardware will require careful settings management for smooth gameplay.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 brings a 14-core, 14-thread configuration based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This processor sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it in a competitive position against rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (deltaPct -0.5). For a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded physics and scenery loading, the 5.10 GHz boost clock is particularly relevant.

The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 121 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire measured set. This suggests that at lower resolutions with minimal GPU load, the CPU is capable of feeding frames at a rapid pace. However, the lack of hyperthreading — 14 cores and 14 threads — means that the processor relies on physical cores only, and the passmark_single_thread score of 4394 indicates strong but not exceptional single-core performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648 reinforces this, showing that the CPU is well-suited for the main thread of flight simulation workloads.

Interestingly, the CPU's role becomes more apparent when examining the scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings. The drop from 121 to 97 FPS (24 frames) is substantial, and at this point the GPU is likely becoming the limiting factor. But the fact that 1080p Low reaches 121 FPS — well above 60 FPS — suggests that the CPU is not holding back the combo at lower resolutions. The passmark_multithread score of 38706 shows solid multi-threaded capability, which could help with scenery generation and AI traffic in the simulator, though the game's primary bottleneck in the measured data appears to shift to the GPU as resolution increases.

The Core Ultra 5 245's L3 cache of 24 MB shared, combined with 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, provides sufficient data locality for the game's streaming assets. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 dual-channel support ensures that the CPU can feed data to the GPU without creating a bottleneck. The fact that the combo ranks 1929 out of 3714 tested combinations (roughly the 48th percentile) suggests that while this CPU is strong on its own, it is not the primary driver of this particular pairing's performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 121, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 40, which is the lowest measured result across all resolution and settings combinations.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 121 FPS, which indicates the CPU is capable of high frame rates. The consistent ~40% drop from 1080p to 4K across all presets suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases.

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

A: The combo ranks 1929 out of 3714 total tested combinations, placing it in the middle of the pack for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Does the 6700 XT's 12 GB VRAM cause any issues at 4K?

A: The measured data shows playable frame rates at 4K High (42 FPS) and Medium (56 FPS), suggesting the 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for these settings, though Ultra at 4K drops to 40 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648, and its average benchmark score of 48995 places it within 0.8% of the Intel Core i5-14600K and within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Starting with 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best performance across all settings. At Low settings, the average FPS is 121, providing a very smooth experience for flight simulation. Medium settings reduce this to 94 FPS, with a minimum of 80 and maximum of 108, showing good frame time consistency. High settings bring the average down to 71 FPS, while Ultra settings further reduce it to 67 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features have diminishing returns at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings yield 97 FPS, which is still very playable. Medium settings produce 76 FPS on average, with a minimum of 64 and maximum of 87 — the minimum here is above the 60 FPS threshold, which is important for maintaining smooth visuals. High settings at 1440p average 57 FPS, which is below the ideal 60 FPS mark but still playable for a flight simulator. Ultra settings at 1440p drop to 54 FPS, showing that the transition from High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the combo's performance becomes more constrained. Low settings still manage 72 FPS on average, which is respectable for 4K. Medium settings drop to 56 FPS, with a minimum of 47 and maximum of 64 — the minimum here could result in noticeable stutters during complex scenery loads. High settings average 42 FPS, while Ultra settings bottom out at 40 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 2 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily saturated at this resolution and the additional Ultra features have minimal impact on the already low frame rate.

The complete measured data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low (121 FPS) > 1440p Low (97 FPS) > 1080p Medium (94 FPS) > 4K Low (72 FPS) > 1080p High (71 FPS) > 1080p Ultra (67 FPS) > 1440p Medium (76 FPS, note this fits between 1080p High and Ultra). This ordering reveals that resolution has a larger impact on performance than settings at the lower end, but at higher presets, the settings level becomes more significant.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1929 out of 3714 tested combinations places this pairing at approximately the 48th percentile for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This mid-pack ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual component strengths — the CPU sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The discrepancy suggests that the game's specific demands and the interaction between these two components do not translate into top-tier performance relative to other tested combos.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for its standalone performance: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196 (deltaPct -0.4), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228 (deltaPct -0.5), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 48698 (deltaPct 0.6). These differences are all within 1% of the Core Ultra 5 245's average benchmark score of 48995, indicating that CPU performance is well within the expected range for this class. The GPU's nearest rivals show similar tight clustering: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile scores 27435 (deltaPct 0), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 scores 27565 (deltaPct -0.5), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell scores 27135 (deltaPct 1.1).

The mid-pack ranking of 1929/3714 likely reflects the fact that many tested combos pair higher-end GPUs with this class of CPU, or pair this GPU with faster CPUs. The measured FPS data shows that the combo is capable of 121 FPS at 1080p Low, which is competitive, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 40 FPS, which is below what many other combos with more powerful GPUs would achieve. The ranking suggests that for users seeking top-tier performance in this game, there are better pairings available, but for balanced 1080p or 1440p gaming, this combo holds its own.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with an average of 94 FPS and a minimum of 80 FPS that provides headroom against frame drops. The High preset at 71 FPS is also viable, and the Ultra preset at 67 FPS remains above 60 FPS, making all settings playable at 1080p. Given the small 4 FPS difference between High and Ultra at this resolution, users with a 60 Hz display could reasonably choose Ultra for maximum visual fidelity.

For 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, delivering 76 FPS on average with a minimum of 64 FPS. This keeps the experience above 60 FPS for the majority of gameplay. The Low preset at 97 FPS is available for users prioritizing frame rate, but the visual compromise may not be worth the extra 21 FPS. High settings at 57 FPS fall just below the 60 FPS threshold, which could result in subtle judder on 60 Hz displays. Ultra at 54 FPS is similarly borderline, making Medium the clear sweet spot for 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more challenging. Low settings at 72 FPS provide the only comfortable experience above 60 FPS. Medium settings at 56 FPS are playable but with a minimum of 47 FPS that could cause noticeable stutters during demanding scenes. High and Ultra at 42 and 40 FPS respectively are below the ideal threshold, making them less recommended unless the user prioritizes visual quality over smoothness. For 4K, the Low preset is the safest recommendation, with Medium as a compromise for users willing to accept occasional frame drops.

Overall, the data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming with Medium-to-High settings. At 1080p, all presets are playable, but Medium provides the best safety margin. At 1440p, Medium is the clear winner. At 4K, users should stick to Low or Medium settings to maintain playable frame rates.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process. It features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, along with 40 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost clock of 2581 MHz, with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus providing 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications place the GPU in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27425.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution and settings increase. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 121 FPS, which likely has headroom for GPU utilization not being maxed out. However, as resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the GPU's compute capabilities — 13.21 TFLOPS FP32 and a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s — become the limiting factor. The pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s is particularly relevant for the 4K resolution, where the GPU must fill over 8.3 million pixels per frame, and the measured 40 FPS at 4K Ultra reflects this workload.

The GPU's 12 GB VRAM capacity appears sufficient for the tested settings, as there are no signs of texture thrashing or memory-related stutters in the min FPS data. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a minimum of 64 FPS, which is respectable, and even at 4K Medium the minimum of 47 FPS indicates the GPU is managing memory adequately. The memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s is adequate for the data throughput required, though the 192-bit bus width is narrower than some higher-end alternatives.

Comparing the GPU to its nearest rivals shows tight clustering: the RTX 4070 Mobile scores 27435 (deltaPct 0), the RTX 3090 scores 27565 (deltaPct -0.5), and the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell scores 27135 (deltaPct 1.1). This indicates the 6700 XT performs essentially on par with these cards in synthetic benchmarks, though real-world game performance — as shown in the measured FPS — will vary based on driver optimization and specific game engines. The GPU's end-of-life production status and 230 W TDP suggest it remains a capable option, but its mid-range positioning is reflected in the 4K performance figures.

The GPU's ray tracing capabilities (40 RT cores) are present but not heavily utilized in this game's measured data, as the settings presets do not indicate RT-specific features. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility ensure the GPU is well-suited for modern game APIs, which Microsoft Flight Simulator leverages. The dual-slot design and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors make installation straightforward, and the suggested 550 W PSU is reasonable for a mid-range system.