Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a demanding workload that shifts dramatically based on resolution. With the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, the data reveals a system that is firmly GPU-bound at 4K, but becomes increasingly CPU-limited as resolution drops. At 3840x2160 on Ultra settings, the combo produces 59 FPS average, which rises to 62 FPS on High, 82 FPS on Medium, and 106 FPS on Low. The scaling from Ultra to Low at 4K represents a 79.7% performance uplift, indicating that the GPU has significant headroom to exploit when graphical load is reduced. However, the progression is not linear; the jump from High to Medium yields a 32.3% increase, while the jump from Medium to Low yields a 29.3% increase, suggesting that the most demanding settings are not the primary bottleneck.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with higher absolute numbers. Ultra averages 80 FPS, High 84 FPS, Medium 111 FPS, and Low 143 FPS. The scaling from Ultra to Low here is 78.8%, nearly identical to the 4K result, which is curious. This consistency implies that the GPU is still the dominant constraint at 1440p, as the relative performance gains from lowering settings match the 4K behavior. At 1920x1080, the picture changes. Ultra averages 99 FPS, High 104 FPS, Medium 138 FPS, and Low 177 FPS. The scaling from Ultra to Low is 78.8% again, but the absolute FPS values are much higher. The difference between 4K Ultra (59 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (99 FPS) is only 67.8% improvement, which is less than the 4K to 1440p jump (35.6% improvement from 59 to 80 FPS). This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is starting to limit the frame rate, preventing the GPU from fully flexing its muscle.

The limiting component analysis is clear: at 4K, the RX 7900 XT is the bottleneck, as evidenced by the 62 FPS High setting versus the 106 FPS Low setting. The GPU’s workload is so heavy that it cannot push past these numbers. At 1440p, the GPU remains the primary limiter, but the CPU’s influence begins to appear. At 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, as the GPU has enough power to produce 177 FPS on Low, but the CPU cannot feed it fast enough to exceed that. The data suggests that for this combination, the sweet spot for balanced performance is 1440p, where the GPU is well-utilized without being overwhelmed.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of diminishing returns as resolution increases. From 1080p Low (177 FPS) to 1440p Low (143 FPS), the drop is 19.2%. From 1440p Low to 4K Low (106 FPS), the drop is 25.9%. This larger percentage decrease at higher resolutions confirms the GPU is the limiting component at 4K. For Medium settings, the drops are 18.4% from 1080p to 1440p (138 to 111 FPS) and 26.1% from 1440p to 4K (111 to 82 FPS). The trend is consistent. For High settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.2% (104 to 84 FPS), and from 1440p to 4K is 26.2% (84 to 62 FPS). This consistent pattern across all settings indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and bandwidth are the primary constraints at higher resolutions.

However, the Ultra preset tells a slightly different story. From 1080p Ultra (99 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (80 FPS), the drop is 19.2%. From 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra (59 FPS), the drop is 26.3%. The Ultra preset’s scaling is in line with the others, but the absolute numbers are lower. This suggests that the Ultra preset introduces additional computational load that taxes both the GPU and CPU. The fact that 1080p Ultra (99 FPS) is only 6.4% faster than 4K High (62 FPS) is telling. It means that even at 1080p, the Ultra preset is so heavy that the GPU cannot achieve the high frame rates seen with lower settings. The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor at 4K, as the GPU is clearly saturated. At 1080p, the CPU becomes the bottleneck, preventing the GPU from reaching its full potential, as seen by the 177 FPS ceiling on Low settings.

The resolution scaling analysis reveals that this system is best suited for 1440p gaming, where it delivers a balanced experience. At 4K, it can handle High settings (62 FPS) but struggles with Ultra (59 FPS). At 1080p, it is CPU-bound, leaving GPU performance on the table. The 1440p Medium setting (111 FPS) offers a strong balance between visual fidelity and frame rate, while 1440p High (84 FPS) provides a more detailed image at a still-playable frame rate. The data shows that the RX 7900 XT has enough power for 4K, but the CPU’s performance at lower resolutions limits the overall experience.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is a high-end GPU with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 800.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is well-suited for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a game known for streaming large amounts of terrain and aircraft data. The 20 GB VRAM capacity ensures that at 4K Ultra settings, the GPU does not run out of memory, as evidenced by the 59 FPS average. The memory clock is 2500 MHz, which translates to 20 Gbps effective, and the bus width allows for substantial data throughput. The GPU’s base clock is 1387 MHz, with a boost clock of 2394 MHz and a game clock of 2025 MHz. The boost clock of 2394 MHz is the maximum achievable, and the game clock of 2025 MHz represents the typical sustained frequency during gaming. The difference between these clocks indicates that the GPU can dynamically adjust its frequency based on load.

The GPU’s architecture is RDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, featuring 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. It has 5376 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 192 raster operation pipelines. The pixel rate is 459.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 804.4 GTexel/s. These specifications translate to a raw compute power of 51.48 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this compute power is used for rendering the complex scenery and weather effects. The GPU’s performance in the measured FPS data shows that it can handle the game’s demands, but the frame rates are not exceptionally high, suggesting that the game is not purely GPU-bound at all resolutions. The 4K High setting (62 FPS) and 4K Medium (82 FPS) indicate that the GPU is capable, but the Ultra preset (59 FPS) shows that the most demanding settings can push it to its limits.

The GPU’s benchmark scores provide context for its performance. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 5623 points, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 71068 points. The Passmark G3D score is 29009, and the Passmark GPU Compute score is 16828. These scores, combined with the GPU’s percentile rank of 55th percentile vs all GPUs, suggest that while it is a capable card, it is not in the top tier. The nearest rivals in the benchmark data include the AMD Radeon 660M (deltaPct -0.5%), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (deltaPct -0.5%), and AMD Radeon RX 570X (deltaPct -0.9%). These rivals have similar average scores, but the RX 7900 XT’s performance in Flight Simulator is more dependent on the specific game’s optimization. The GPU’s TDP is 300 W, and it requires a 700 W PSU, which is a consideration for system builders. The GPU is end-of-life, but it remains a relevant option for high-resolution gaming.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT combo ranks 489th out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 16.3% of all tested combos, which is a strong showing. The rank of 489 out of 2996 means that this system outperforms the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings in this specific game. This is impressive given that the GPU is only at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, and the CPU is at the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The combination of a high-end CPU and a mid-to-high-end GPU proves to be effective for this game. The rank suggests that the CPU’s strong performance is helping to boost the system’s overall standing, even though the GPU is not in the top tier.

The combo’s rank is determined by the measured FPS across all resolutions and settings. The data shows that this system can achieve 177 FPS at 1080p Low, which is a very high frame rate. At 4K Ultra, it still manages 59 FPS, which is playable. The rank of 489 indicates that there are 488 combos that perform better, but these likely include top-tier GPUs such as the RTX 4090 or RX 7900 XTX, paired with high-end CPUs. The fact that this combo ranks in the top 500 out of nearly 3000 confirms its balanced performance. The CPU’s benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32924 and a Passmark multithread score of 38706, contribute to its ability to keep up with the GPU.

The combo’s rank also implies that the system is not bottlenecked by either component. If the CPU were too weak, the rank would be lower due to low FPS at 1080p. If the GPU were too weak, the rank would be lower due to low FPS at 4K. The fact that the rank is in the top 16.3% suggests that the balance is good. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (deltaPct -0.4%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (deltaPct -0.5%), have similar average scores, but the combo’s rank in Flight Simulator is what matters. The data shows that this specific pairing is well-suited for the game, and the rank reflects that.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s priority for frame rate versus visual fidelity. For a consistent 60 FPS experience at 4K, the High preset (62 FPS average) is the best choice, as it provides a smooth frame rate without the performance hit of Ultra (59 FPS). The Medium preset at 4K (82 FPS) offers a significant frame rate boost over High, with a 32.3% increase, making it a strong option for users who prefer higher frame rates over maximum detail. The Low preset at 4K (106 FPS) is overkill for most users, as the visual quality drop is substantial, but it demonstrates the system’s capability to reach high frame rates even at 4K.

At 1440p, the Medium preset (111 FPS) offers the best balance between visual quality and performance, providing a smooth experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset (84 FPS) is also playable, but the 32.3% increase from High to Medium is worth considering. The Ultra preset (80 FPS) is close to High in terms of FPS, but the visual difference might be minimal, making Medium the better value. At 1080p, the Medium preset (138 FPS) is the best choice for high refresh rate monitors, as it delivers a very smooth experience. The High preset (104 FPS) is also fine, but the 32.7% increase from High to Medium is significant. The Ultra preset (99 FPS) is not worth the performance hit, as it only offers marginal visual improvements over High.

For the best overall experience, the data suggests that 1440p Medium is the sweet spot, offering 111 FPS with a good balance of detail and performance. If the user has a 4K monitor, the High preset is the recommended choice, as it provides a playable 62 FPS without the dramatic FPS drop seen at Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K (82 FPS) is also a viable option for those who prioritize frame rate over the highest settings. The data indicates that the Ultra preset is not optimized for this game, as the performance difference between Ultra and High is only 5.1% (59 vs 62 FPS at 4K), which is negligible compared to the visual impact of the setting.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the average FPS for this combo at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 59 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank compared to other tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 489th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 16.3% of all tested systems.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 177 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile rank compared to all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT is at the 55th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the CPU’s boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between 1440p High and 4K High?

A: At 2560x1440 High, the average FPS is 84, while at 3840x2160 High, it is 62, representing a 26.2% decrease.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

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 by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, and each core has 192 KB of L1 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache. This configuration is designed for high single-threaded performance, which is crucial for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The game is known to be heavily CPU-dependent, especially for physics calculations and AI traffic. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.10 GHz ensures that it can handle these tasks with minimal latency. The benchmark scores reflect its capabilities: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648 and a multicore score of 32924. The Passmark single-thread score is 4394, and the Passmark multithread score is 38706.

The CPU’s performance in Flight Simulator is evident from the measured FPS data, particularly at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 177 FPS, which is a high frame rate that suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor. However, at 1080p Ultra (99 FPS), the frame rate drops significantly, indicating that the CPU is struggling to keep up with the game’s physics and simulation tasks at higher settings. The 1080p High setting (104 FPS) is only 5.1% faster than 1080p Ultra, which is a small margin. This suggests that the CPU is the bottleneck at 1080p, as the GPU is not being fully utilized. The CPU’s 14 cores and 14 threads are sufficient for the game, but the lack of hyper-threading means that the CPU cannot handle as many concurrent threads as some rivals.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (deltaPct -0.4%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (deltaPct -0.5%). These CPUs have similar average scores, but the Core Ultra 5 245’s boost clock of 5.10 GHz gives it an edge in single-threaded tasks. The CPU’s memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. This memory bandwidth is sufficient for the game, but the CPU’s performance is more dependent on its core architecture and clock speed. The CPU has a TDP of 65 W and is built on a 3 nm process, which is efficient. The CPU’s percentile rank of 90th vs all CPUs indicates that it is a high-performing processor, and this is reflected in its ability to maintain high frame rates at 1080p, even if the GPU is not fully utilized. The data shows that the CPU is a strong partner for the RX 7900 XT, and the combo’s rank of 489th out of 2996 reflects their combined capabilities.