Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

This combination pairs Intel's Arrow Lake-based Core Ultra 5 245 with AMD's RDNA 3.0 Radeon RX 7800 XT, producing measured frame rates that range from 49 FPS at 4K Ultra to 149 FPS at 1080p Low in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a system that is consistently playable across most settings, though the heaviest preset at 4K dips below the 60 FPS threshold that many flight sim enthusiasts prefer for smooth scenery panning.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 14 cores and 14 threads. This means the chip has no hyperthreading — each core handles a single thread — yet its multi-threaded results remain strong. The processor runs at a 3.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.10 GHz, which is a significant frequency advantage for a flight simulator that often relies on single-core performance for physics and flight model calculations. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared, and the L2 cache is 3 MB per core, providing ample fast storage for the game's streaming terrain data.

In synthetic workloads, the Core Ultra 5 245 achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. These numbers place the CPU in the 90th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals illustrate the competitive positioning: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49196 (0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49228 (0.5% higher), while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H trails at 48698 (0.6% lower) and the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 48618 (0.8% lower). The Core Ultra 5 245 sits essentially neck-and-neck with this group, within a 1.3% band of all four rivals.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is evident in the scaling pattern. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 149 FPS, which is the highest measured result in this dataset. Since lower resolutions place less strain on the GPU, this figure reflects the CPU's ability to feed frames quickly. The single-core boost of 5.10 GHz is particularly relevant here — flight simulators typically have a primary simulation thread that cannot be fully parallelized, and the high boost clock helps keep that thread from becoming a bottleneck. The PassMark single-thread score of 4394 reinforces this capability, while the multi-thread score of 38706 shows that the 14 cores also handle background tasks like AI traffic and scenery loading without contention.

The CPU's performance in data compression (PassMark score of 400942) and floating-point math (120548) suggests it can process the game's streaming world data efficiently. Memory bandwidth is rated at 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5 support, which is adequate for feeding the GPU with texture and geometry data at high resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT uses the Navi 32 chip on a 5 nm process, featuring 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines. It has 60 ray tracing cores and delivers 37.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2124 MHz, and a boost clock of 2430 MHz. Memory consists of 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

In GPU benchmarks, the RX 7800 XT achieves a PassMark G3D score of 24176 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 54228. Its percentile ranking among all GPUs is 51, with an average benchmark score of 11627. The nearest rivals show a mixed picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 scores 11680 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 11528 (0.9% lower), the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11479 (1.3% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 11842 (1.8% higher). These deltas are all within 2%, indicating that the RX 7800 XT sits in a tightly contested performance tier in synthetic tests, though its real-world gaming results in this title are more revealing.

The 16 GB VRAM capacity is noteworthy for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads extensive photogrammetry and high-resolution textures. At 4K Ultra, the game demands substantial memory for terrain tiles, and the 16 GB buffer helps prevent texture pop-in or stuttering that would occur with smaller pools. The 624.1 GB/s bandwidth ensures that this large frame buffer can be fed quickly during fast flyovers. The GPU's pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and texture rate of 583.2 GTexel/s are directly relevant to how efficiently the card can render the dense scenery and cockpit instruments at higher resolutions.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the system hits 149 FPS, but at 4K Low it drops to 88 FPS — a 41% reduction that is typical of GPU-bound scaling. The RX 7800 XT's directx 12 benchmark score of 93 (PassMark) is modest, but the game's measured results indicate the card handles the DirectX 12 workload adequately in practice.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a clear pattern of GPU limitation as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the system produces 149 FPS, which drops to 120 FPS at 1440p Low (a 19.5% reduction) and further to 88 FPS at 4K Low (a 40.9% reduction from 1080p). This scaling is steeper than what a purely CPU-bound scenario would show, confirming that the RX 7800 XT is the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

At High settings, the progression is 87 FPS at 1080p, 70 FPS at 1440p (a 19.5% drop), and 52 FPS at 4K (a 40.2% drop from 1080p). The percentage reductions are nearly identical between Low and High settings, suggesting that the resolution scaling factor is consistent regardless of preset. This consistency indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the determining factors, rather than any specific setting that might disproportionately affect one resolution.

At Medium settings, the only preset with min/max FPS data, the system shows 116 FPS average at 1080p (98 min, 133 max), 93 FPS at 1440p (79 min, 107 max), and 69 FPS at 4K (59 min, 79 max). The min FPS values are particularly informative: at 4K Medium, the minimum of 59 FPS is just below the 60 FPS target, indicating occasional dips during complex scenes. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 79 FPS provides more headroom, while 1080p Medium never falls below 98 FPS.

Ultra settings show the steepest absolute drops: 83 FPS at 1080p, 67 FPS at 1440p (19.3% lower), and 49 FPS at 4K (41% lower than 1080p). The 4K Ultra result of 49 FPS is the lowest in the entire dataset, falling below the 50 FPS mark that many players consider a minimum for acceptable smoothness in this genre.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset of measured FPS across resolutions and settings provides a comprehensive picture. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 149 FPS on Low, 116 FPS on Medium (98 min, 133 max), 87 FPS on High, and 83 FPS on Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity without a proportional performance cost at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results are 120 FPS on Low, 93 FPS on Medium (79 min, 107 max), 70 FPS on High, and 67 FPS on Ultra. The difference between High and Ultra narrows to 3 FPS, and both remain above the 60 FPS threshold. The 1440p Medium result of 93 FPS offers a comfortable margin, with the minimum of 79 FPS ensuring that even demanding flight segments stay smooth.

At 3840x2160, the system produces 88 FPS on Low, 69 FPS on Medium (59 min, 79 max), 52 FPS on High, and 49 FPS on Ultra. This is where the RX 7800 XT's limits become apparent. The 4K High result of 52 FPS is below the 60 FPS target, and 4K Ultra at 49 FPS is the only preset/resolution combination that falls below 50 FPS. The 4K Medium result of 69 FPS is the only 4K preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS, though its minimum of 59 FPS shows it occasionally dips just below.

Comparing settings across resolutions, the performance cost of Ultra versus Low is consistent: 44.3% lower at 1080p (83 vs 149), 44.2% lower at 1440p (67 vs 120), and 44.3% lower at 4K (49 vs 88). This uniformity suggests that the preset differences scale evenly, with each step from Low to Medium, Medium to High, and High to Ultra taking a similar proportional toll.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this combo for a consistent 60+ FPS experience?

A: The data shows that 1440p delivers 60+ FPS averages on all four presets — Low at 120 FPS, Medium at 93 FPS, High at 70 FPS, and Ultra at 67 FPS. At 4K, only Low (88 FPS) and Medium (69 FPS) exceed 60 FPS averages, while High (52 FPS) and Ultra (49 FPS) fall short.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: The reductions are consistent across presets: Low drops from 149 to 88 FPS (40.9% lower), Medium drops from 116 to 69 FPS (40.5% lower), High drops from 87 to 52 FPS (40.2% lower), and Ultra drops from 83 to 49 FPS (41.0% lower). This indicates a uniform GPU-bound scaling pattern.

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

A: The scaling data suggests the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions. From 1080p to 4K, FPS drops by roughly 40% across all settings, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's 90th percentile ranking and high single-core boost clock (5.10 GHz) provide sufficient headroom, as evidenced by the 149 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values for the Medium preset at each resolution?

A: The Medium preset is the only one with min/max data: 98 FPS minimum at 1080p, 79 FPS minimum at 1440p, and 59 FPS minimum at 4K. These values show that even the lowest frame rates remain playable at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K occasionally dips just below 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 947th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 31.6% of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This mid-tier ranking reflects the balanced pairing of a strong CPU with a mid-range GPU.

Q: Is there a significant difference between High and Ultra settings at any resolution?

A: The differences are minimal: 4 FPS at 1080p (87 vs 83), 3 FPS at 1440p (70 vs 67), and 3 FPS at 4K (52 vs 49). The Ultra preset costs less than 6% performance compared to High across all resolutions, making it a relatively inexpensive visual upgrade.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience. At 1080p, the Ultra preset is the best choice — it delivers 83 FPS, which is only 4 FPS lower than High, so the visual improvements come at a negligible cost. Players with high-refresh monitors can enjoy the full fidelity of Ultra without dropping below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset remains viable at 67 FPS, but the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience with 93 FPS average and a 79 FPS minimum. The High preset at 70 FPS is also a strong option, providing a 3 FPS improvement over Ultra while still staying above 60 FPS. For players who prioritize smoothness over maximum detail, Medium is the recommended choice, as its minimum FPS of 79 provides substantial headroom for complex scenes.

At 4K, the Medium preset is the only option that maintains an average above 60 FPS, delivering 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS. The Low preset at 88 FPS is the smoothest experience, but the visual sacrifice is significant for a game that emphasizes scenery detail. High at 52 FPS and Ultra at 49 FPS are both below the 60 FPS target, making them suitable only for players who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate smoothness and are willing to tolerate occasional dips. The Medium preset at 4K is the recommended compromise, as it balances the 16 GB VRAM capacity of the RX 7800 XT with acceptable frame pacing.

Across all resolutions, the step from High to Ultra costs less than 6% performance, so players who can run High can almost always run Ultra. The step from Medium to High costs roughly 18-25% depending on resolution (116 to 87 FPS at 1080p is a 25% drop, 93 to 70 FPS at 1440p is a 24.7% drop, 69 to 52 FPS at 4K is a 24.6% drop), which is a more significant trade-off.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT ranks 947th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 68th percentile of all tested systems. This ranking reflects the balanced nature of the pairing: the CPU sits in the 90th percentile of all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The system is stronger on the CPU side, which benefits this particular game given its reliance on single-threaded simulation logic.

The rank of 947 out of 2996 means that roughly two-thirds of tested combinations outperform this setup, which is expected given the mid-range positioning of the RX 7800 XT. However, the measured FPS data shows that this ranking does not translate to poor playability. At 1440p, the system delivers playable frame rates on every preset, and at 1080p it exceeds 80 FPS even on Ultra. The 4K Ultra result of 49 FPS is the only configuration that falls below playable thresholds, and even that remains above 45 FPS.

The gap between CPU and GPU percentiles — 90th versus 51st — indicates that the RX 7800 XT is the limiting factor in this pairing. Players seeking higher frame rates at 4K would need a more powerful GPU, while the CPU has headroom to support a faster graphics card without becoming a bottleneck. The consistent 40% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings confirms that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the binding constraints, not the CPU's processing capability.