Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title that stresses both the processor and the graphics card in ways few other games do. The data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 shows a system that is clearly capable of solid performance, but with a distinct balance between CPU and GPU load depending on resolution and settings. The measured results indicate that this combination is best suited for smooth 1080p and 1440p play, while 4K requires dialing back settings to maintain acceptable frame rates. The Core Ultra 5 245, with its 14 cores and 14 threads, provides a strong foundation for the simulation's complex calculations, while the RTX 4060's 8 GB of VRAM and Ada Lovelace architecture handle the visual load. The overall picture from the data is one of a balanced, mid-range system that can deliver a very enjoyable flight experience at most settings, though it is not built for maximum fidelity at the highest resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread processor from the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU is responsible for a vast array of tasks: simulating the flight model, physics, weather, and the complex autopilot systems, as well as managing the streaming of terrain and airport data. The benchmark data shows the CPU holds a 90th percentile ranking against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48995. This places it in the upper echelon of processors, though its nearest rivals are relatively close. For instance, it is 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, but 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K. These small deltas suggest that in raw computational throughput, the Core Ultra 5 245 is essentially tied with these competitors, meaning any performance differences in the game will come down to how the specific workloads of the simulator are handled.

The single-threaded performance is particularly relevant for flight simulators, as many core simulation loops are not perfectly parallelized. The CPU scores 4648 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4394 in Passmark's single-thread test. These strong results suggest the 5.10 GHz boost clock is effective for the main simulation thread. In multi-threaded workloads, the CPU scores 32924 in Cinebench R23, which is a solid result and indicates it can handle the background tasks like AI traffic and scenery generation without choking the main thread. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache is also beneficial for the large data sets involved in flight simulation. The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions and settings, as the frame rates scale well from Low to Medium and High at 1080p. However, it's a critical component that allows the GPU to be fully utilized. The processor's performance is a key reason why the system can hit 119 FPS on Low settings at 1080p, as it's able to feed the RTX 4060 enough data to prevent a significant CPU-side frame cap.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its closest rivals in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995. This places it 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (score 49196) and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (score 49228). Conversely, it is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (score 48698) and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K (score 48618). The differences are all within a single percentage point, indicating near-parity with these parts.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system to run Microsoft Flight Simulator at High settings?

A: The measured data shows that at 1920x1080 with High settings, the system achieves an average of 70 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 on High settings drops the average to 56 FPS. At 3840x2160 on High, the average falls to 42 FPS. Therefore, 1080p or 1440p provides the most fluid experience on High, with 4K being more playable on lower settings.

Q: Is the RTX 4060's 8 GB of VRAM a limiting factor in this game?

A: The data does not directly measure VRAM usage, but the performance scaling across settings suggests it is a factor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 40, which is the lowest score in the measured set. This significant drop from 4K High (42 FPS) and 4K Medium (55 FPS) indicates that the combination of the highest resolution and highest settings is heavily taxing the GPU, which is likely related to its 8 GB memory capacity and 128-bit memory bus.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS on Low settings is 119. On Medium settings, it's 93 FPS, and on High, it's 70 FPS. The Ultra preset yields an average of 66 FPS. This shows a clear scaling of performance with visual fidelity, with Ultra being 45% slower than Low in this configuration.

Q: How does the system's performance at 1440p Medium compare to 4K Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the system achieves an average of 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 and a maximum of 86 FPS. At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average FPS drops to 55, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 64 FPS. This represents a 27% reduction in average frame rate when moving from 1440p to 4K at the same settings.

Q: Where does this system rank in overall performance for this game?

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 ranks at 1564 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top half of all tested systems, indicating it provides a competent experience but is not among the top-tier performers for this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a clear trend in how the system's performance scales with resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is capable of high frame rates across all settings, with the average FPS ranging from 66 on Ultra to 119 on Low. This indicates that at 1080p, the system is often limited by the CPU's ability to prepare frames, especially at lower graphical settings where the GPU has less work to do. The jump from 119 FPS at Low to 93 FPS at Medium is a 22% drop, while the drop from Medium to High is a 25% reduction to 70 FPS. The final step to Ultra results in a smaller 6% drop to 66 FPS, suggesting that the CPU is starting to become the primary bottleneck, as the GPU's workload increases but the frame rate cannot scale linearly.

Moving to 2560x1440, the overall frame rates decrease, but the pattern remains similar. At Low, the system still achieves a very playable 96 FPS. The drop to Medium is 22% to 75 FPS, and the drop to High is another 25% to 56 FPS. Ultra settings yield 54 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings shows a significant performance hit: for example, at High settings, the average FPS drops from 70 to 56, a 20% reduction. This is a larger drop than the pure pixel count difference (which is 78% more pixels), indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor at this resolution, but the CPU is still contributing to the frame pacing.

At 3840x2160, the system is clearly GPU-bound. The average FPS at Low settings is 71, which is a 26% drop from the 96 FPS at 1440p Low. At Medium, the average is 55 FPS, a 27% drop from the 75 FPS at 1440p Medium. The High preset yields 42 FPS, a 25% drop from the 56 FPS at 1440p High. The Ultra preset brings the average down to 40 FPS. The scaling between settings at 4K is also less steep than at lower resolutions. From Low to Medium, there is a 23% drop, from Medium to High a 24% drop, and from High to Ultra a 5% drop. This compression of frame rates at 4K, particularly between High and Ultra, strongly suggests that the GPU is saturated and its limits, including VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth, are the primary constraints. The RTX 4060's 8 GB of VRAM and 128-bit bus are likely insufficient for the highest texture and rendering demands at this resolution, causing the frame rates to cluster together as the GPU struggles to keep up.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest performance. On Low settings, the average FPS is 119, offering a very fluid experience. Medium settings see the average drop to 93 FPS, with a minimum of 79 and a maximum of 107 FPS. High settings reduce the average to 70 FPS. The Ultra preset, the most demanding, yields an average of 66 FPS. This range of scores shows that for 1080p gaming, the user has a wide choice of presets, from high-refresh-rate play on Low to a still-smooth experience on Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the performance remains respectable. Low settings produce an average of 96 FPS, which is still excellent for a flight simulator. Medium settings average 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 and a maximum of 86 FPS. High settings average 56 FPS, which is playable but less smooth. Ultra settings average 54 FPS. The data shows a clear step-down from 1080p, but the system can handle 1440p well on Medium and Low presets, and remains playable on High and Ultra for users who prefer visual fidelity over frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the system's limits are apparent. Low settings yield an average of 71 FPS, which is the only 4K preset that approaches a high-refresh experience. Medium settings average 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 64 FPS, which is a playable but not ideal frame rate for a smooth experience. High settings average 42 FPS, and Ultra settings average 40 FPS. Both of these latter presets are below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel stuttery for some users, especially during fast maneuvers or over dense scenery. The measured minimum FPS for the 4K Medium preset is 47 FPS, showing that the system can dip further, which could impact the experience in busy areas.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture and features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1830 MHz, with a boost clock of 2460 MHz. The GPU holds a 61st percentile ranking against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17639. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon 780M (0.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.5% behind). These are all significantly older or lower-tier parts, showing that the RTX 4060 is a solid mid-range performer, but not a powerhouse.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the highly detailed environment, including terrain, aircraft models, and dynamic lighting. The 8 GB VRAM is a critical factor. The data shows that at 4K, the performance gap between High and Ultra settings is very small (42 FPS vs 40 FPS), which strongly indicates that the GPU is running out of memory or bandwidth to load the higher-resolution textures. The 128-bit memory bus is a known limitation for this card, and the 272.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but struggles at 4K with high-resolution assets. The FP32 performance of 15.11 TFLOPS is sufficient for the game's shaders, but the overall memory subsystem is the bottleneck at the highest settings. The card's 3072 shading units and 48 ROPs are also factors, but the relative stability of frame rates between High and Ultra at 4K points directly to the memory constraints.

The GPU's performance is also reflected in its Passmark G3D score of 19545, which places it in the 61st percentile. This score, while not directly a game benchmark, provides context for its overall capability. The fact that it is only slightly better than the much older AMD Radeon HD 7790 in average benchmark score (17639 vs 17666) highlights that while the RTX 4060 is modern and efficient, its absolute performance is in line with older high-end parts, and it is not designed for extreme 4K gaming. For this simulator, the RTX 4060 will deliver a great experience at 1080p and a good one at 1440p, but 4K users will need to compromise on settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this system depends heavily on the user's display resolution and preference for smoothness versus visual quality. For users on a 1920x1080 display, the High preset at 70 FPS provides an excellent balance of visual fidelity and performance. For those with high-refresh-rate monitors, the Low preset at 119 FPS offers a very responsive experience, while the Medium preset at 93 FPS is a strong middle ground. The Ultra preset at 66 FPS is also viable, but the marginal gain over High is small relative to the performance cost.

For 2560x1440 displays, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, delivering an average of 75 FPS with a minimum of 64 FPS, which ensures a mostly smooth experience. The Low preset at 96 FPS is the best option for maximizing frame rate, while the High preset at 56 FPS is acceptable for users who prioritize visuals and can tolerate a lower frame rate. The Ultra preset at 54 FPS is not recommended, as it offers little benefit over High and drops the frame rate below the 60 FPS target.

For 3840x2160 displays, the options are more constrained. The Low preset at 71 FPS is the only preset that provides a consistently smooth experience. The Medium preset at 55 FPS is playable, but its minimum of 47 FPS may cause noticeable stutters in demanding scenarios. The High and Ultra presets, at 42 and 40 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a satisfying experience, as the frame rates are too low for a simulation that requires precise control. In summary, the data suggests that the optimal experience is to play at 1080p on High or 1440p on Medium, as these presets offer the best trade-off between visual quality and measured frame rate stability. For 4K, users should stick to Low or Medium settings to maintain playability.