Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic CPU benchmarks?

A: The Ultra 5 245 sits within a very tight band of performance. Its average benchmark score is only 0.4% below the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% below the AMD Ryzen 9 7900. Meanwhile, it is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 a high-performing graphics card relative to the rest of the market?

A: The data places the RX 9060 in the 59th percentile among all tested GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 16014. It performs nearly identically to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which is 0.7% faster, and essentially matches the AMD Radeon RX 7700, which is 1% faster.

Q: What is the best settings preset to use for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware?

A: The Medium preset provides the most balanced experience. At 1080p, it delivers an average of 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS, which is much smoother than the High preset's 65 FPS average. At 1440p, Medium still holds a 69 FPS average. Low is playable but sacrifices visual fidelity, while Ultra drops below 62 FPS at 1080p.

Q: How does the combo rank against other tested CPU-GPU pairings for this game?

A: This specific combination of the Core Ultra 5 245 and the Radeon RX 9060 ranks 1712th out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the performance distribution, which is consistent with the GPU's mid-range percentile ranking.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 245 have a high core count?

A: The processor features 14 cores and 14 threads, which means it does not use Hyper-Threading. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its single-thread performance is strong, as shown by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648, which is important for simulation games.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of this CPU, and does it support ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. This is a desktop chip on the Intel Socket 1851 platform, using the Arrow Lake architecture.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 at rank 1712 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a mid-pack result, meaning the hardware is capable of running the game, but it is not at the top end of performance. The GPU's 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs is the primary constraint here; the CPU is far more capable, sitting in the 90th percentile among all CPUs.

The fact that the combo sits at the 57th percentile (1712/2996) of tested pairings is telling. It suggests that while the CPU has headroom to drive higher frame rates, the graphics card is the limiting factor for this specific workload. The GPU's average benchmark score of 16014 puts it in the same class as the RTX 3060 Ti and RX 7700, which are solid 1080p and entry-level 1440p cards, but not high-end solutions. This ranking is a direct reflection of that mid-range positioning.

The benchmark results show a clear pattern: the system can handle the game, but users should not expect to run maximum settings at high resolutions. The frame rates at Ultra settings are below 40 FPS at 4K, which is not a smooth experience. The combo is more suited to High settings at 1080p or Medium settings at 1440p, which is where the performance per visual quality is most acceptable. This ranking is a practical indicator that the pairing is balanced for mainstream play, not for extreme enthusiast setups.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy of settings presets. The Low preset is the only one that guarantees a consistently high frame rate across all resolutions, but it does so by sacrificing visual quality. The Medium preset is the recommended starting point for most users, as it offers a significant improvement in visual fidelity over Low while still maintaining playable frame rates.

At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers an average of 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS. This is the sweet spot for a smooth experience on a standard monitor. The High preset drops the average to 65 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom for demanding scenes. The Ultra preset falls to 62 FPS average, which is borderline for a flight simulator where frame rate consistency matters. The Low preset hits 111 FPS average, but the visual downgrade is substantial.

At 1440p, the Medium preset is still the best choice, with an average of 69 FPS. The High preset at 52 FPS average is functional, but it begins to feel less fluid. The Low preset at 89 FPS is the only way to get a high refresh rate experience at this resolution, but again, the visual compromise is significant. At 4K, even the Medium preset drops to 51 FPS average, which is marginal. The High preset at 39 FPS and Ultra at 37 FPS are not recommended for a playable experience.

The conclusion is straightforward: use Medium settings. It provides the best balance of frame rate and visual quality. If you have a 1080p monitor and prefer higher visual fidelity, High is acceptable, but be prepared for occasional dips below 60 FPS. For 1440p, Medium is the only preset that consistently holds above 60 FPS. For 4K, you will need to use Low or accept a sub-60 FPS experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a comprehensive view of performance.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 111 FPS average
• Medium: 86 FPS average, 73 FPS minimum, 99 FPS maximum
• High: 65 FPS average
• Ultra: 62 FPS average

At 1080p, the system is capable of delivering high frame rates. The jump from Low to Medium reduces the average by 25 FPS, which is a significant cost for the visual upgrade. The difference between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little performance overhead but also provides marginal visual gains at this resolution.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 89 FPS average
• Medium: 69 FPS average, 59 FPS minimum, 80 FPS maximum
• High: 52 FPS average
• Ultra: 50 FPS average

At 1440p, the performance scales predictably. The Medium preset maintains a playable 69 FPS average, with the minimum dipping to 59 FPS. The High and Ultra presets both hover around 50 FPS, which is a noticeable step down. The Low preset at 89 FPS shows that the game is still CPU-bound at this resolution, as the frame rate is high enough to indicate the GPU is not the bottleneck.

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 66 FPS average
• Medium: 51 FPS average, 44 FPS minimum, 59 FPS maximum
• High: 39 FPS average
• Ultra: 37 FPS average

At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. The Medium preset drops to a 51 FPS average, and the High and Ultra presets fall below 40 FPS. The Low preset at 66 FPS is the only one that provides a reasonably smooth experience at this resolution, but it comes with a significant visual downgrade. The minimum FPS of 44 at Medium settings highlights the potential for stutter in complex scenes.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the bottleneck. At Medium settings, the frame rate goes from 86 FPS at 1080p to 69 FPS at 1440p, a 20% reduction, and then to 51 FPS at 4K, a 41% reduction from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions.

At Low settings, the scaling is less severe but still significant: 111 FPS at 1080p, 89 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop), and 66 FPS at 4K (a 26% drop from 1440p). The fact that Low settings at 4K still delivers 66 FPS suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU even at this resolution, but the GPU's raw fill rate and memory bandwidth (8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s) are insufficient for higher quality presets.

The data shows that the system is balanced at 1080p and 1440p. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4648) and high boost clock (5.10 GHz) help maintain frame rates at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed. However, at 4K, the GPU's 64 ROPs and 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance become the limiting factor. The frame rates at 4K High and Ultra settings (39 and 37 FPS, respectively) are simply too low for a smooth experience.

The takeaway is that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming. At 4K, you are forced to use Low settings to get a playable frame rate, which defeats the purpose of the higher resolution. The performance scaling indicates that the Radeon RX 9060 is the primary constraint at higher resolutions, while the CPU has ample headroom to push more frames if the GPU could keep up.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3nm process. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a 24 MB shared L3 cache. This configuration gives it strong single-thread performance, which is critical for flight simulators that often rely on a few heavily loaded threads.

The benchmark data supports this: the Cinebench R23 single-core score is 4648, while the multi-core score is 32924. The single-thread performance is in the top tier, as evidenced by its 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The PassMark single-thread score of 4394 further confirms this. The multi-thread performance is also respectable, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 38706.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and draw calls. The high boost clock of 5.10 GHz helps ensure that the main simulation thread can be processed quickly. The 14 cores provide enough multi-threading headroom for background tasks and other game systems. However, the game's engine is not known for scaling perfectly across many cores, so the single-thread performance is more critical than the core count.

The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 111 FPS, which is high enough to indicate the CPU is not a bottleneck at that resolution and settings level. Even at 4K with Low settings, the 66 FPS average suggests the CPU can keep up with the GPU's output. The bottleneck at higher settings and resolutions is clearly the GPU. The CPU's 24 MB of L3 cache is also beneficial for simulation games that have large working sets.

The Core Ultra 5 245's memory support for dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for this platform. The 65W TDP and support for ECC memory are notable for a desktop part. Overall, the CPU is well-suited for this game and is not the limiting component in this pairing. The performance headroom it offers means that a future GPU upgrade would yield significant frame rate improvements, especially at higher resolutions and settings.