Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this mobile combo of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon RX 7900M produces a wide spread of results depending on how you configure it. The data shows a system that can handle the simulation at high frame rates, but only when you respect the balance between the CPU's capabilities and the GPU's substantial memory bandwidth. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS rows to explain what each component contributes, how resolution shifts the bottleneck, and which settings deliver the most playable experience.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which are the figures that matter for Flight Simulator's single-threaded simulation logic. The chip's cache layout includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3, providing a substantial pool of fast memory for the game's terrain and aircraft systems. The processor is built on Intel's 7 nm process node and supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which is adequate for feeding the GPU in most scenarios.

The CPU's benchmark scores place it in the 83rd percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 32697. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i5-14600T with an average score of 32707 (a delta of 0%), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 with 32662 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F with 32750 (0.2% behind). These deltas are negligible, meaning the Core Ultra 7 155H performs statistically identically to those chips in synthetic tests. In multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R23, it scores 15028, while its single-core score is 1743, showing a strong ratio of single-core performance relative to its multi-core output — a trait that Flight Simulator benefits from, as the game's core simulation loop is heavily dependent on single-thread performance.

When we look at the measured FPS data, the CPU's influence becomes apparent at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 135 FPS average, which is the highest recorded in the entire dataset. This suggests that at this resolution and settings level, the CPU is able to feed the GPU enough draw calls to hit a high frame rate, but the GPU is not fully saturated. As we move to Medium settings at 1080p, the average drops to 105 FPS, and at High it falls to 79 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 30 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 26 FPS — this scaling pattern indicates that the CPU's single-thread performance is a limiting factor when the GPU has spare headroom, because the game's draw call overhead increases with each settings tier.

The Ultra preset at 1080p yields 75 FPS average, which is only 4 FPS lower than High. This small delta suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is the primary constraint once you exceed Medium settings; the GPU is capable of more, but the processor's 4.80 GHz boost clock cannot keep up with the increased object density and physics calculations. The data supports this interpretation because the percentage drop from High to Ultra (about 5%) is much smaller than the drop from Medium to High (about 25%), indicating that the CPU is already close to its ceiling. For a flight simulator where framerate dips matter during complex scenery, the CPU's 22 threads help with background tasks, but the game's main thread still relies on that 3.80 GHz base clock to maintain minimum frame stability.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900M is a mobile flagship with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. This is a critical specification for Flight Simulator, which streams high-resolution textures for terrain, aircraft, and weather systems. The GPU is based on the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and it contains 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. Its base clock is 1825 MHz with a boost clock of 2090 MHz, and the memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The GPU's pixel rate is 401.3 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 601.9 GTexel/s, with FP32 compute at 38.52 TFLOPS. These figures place the RX 7900M in the 94th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 97487.

The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro VII with a score of 97131 (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 with 101872 (4.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 with 92466 (5.4% behind). The RX 7900M sits between these professional workstation cards, but in a gaming context, its 16 GB VRAM is the standout feature — it allows the game to load large texture packs without stuttering. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo still manages 45 FPS average, which is playable for a sim, and the fact that it only drops to 47 FPS on High at the same resolution shows that the GPU's memory bandwidth is not the bottleneck at 4K — the compute load is.

The GPU's role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combo hits 85 FPS average, but at 3840x2160 with Medium, it drops to 63 FPS. This 26% reduction in frame rate from 1440p to 4K is primarily due to the GPU's shading units and ROPs handling more pixels, not the VRAM capacity, since 16 GB is sufficient for 4K textures. The GPU's boost clock of 2090 MHz is moderate for a flagship, but the 576 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming keeps up with the game's fast-moving camera. For comparison, the RX 7900M's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 4201 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 158760 indicate strong compute performance, which translates to the 80 FPS average we see at 4K Low settings.

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

The measured data provides a clear picture of how this combo scales across resolutions, and the pattern reveals where the bottleneck shifts. Starting at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 135 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 109 FPS (a 19% reduction), and at 3840x2160 Low, it lands at 80 FPS (a 27% reduction from 1440p). This scaling is close to what you'd expect from a GPU-bound scenario, but the CPU's involvement is still present because the absolute frame rates are high enough that the processor isn't the ceiling.

At Medium settings, the scaling is more telling. At 1080p, the combo averages 105 FPS with a minimum of 89 FPS. At 1440p, it averages 85 FPS with a minimum of 72 FPS. At 4K, it averages 63 FPS with a minimum of 53 FPS. The minimum FPS values are crucial here: the gap between average and minimum widens as resolution increases, from 16 FPS at 1080p to 13 FPS at 1440p to 10 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor, because the frame time variance grows with pixel count — the GPU's 401.3 GPixel/s pixel rate is being taxed, and the CPU's 4.80 GHz boost clock cannot compensate for the increased rendering load.

For High settings, the scaling is steeper. At 1080p, the combo averages 79 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 64 FPS (a 19% reduction), and at 4K, it falls to 47 FPS (a 27% reduction from 1440p). This mirrors the Low settings pattern almost exactly, indicating that the GPU's compute units are the primary constraint at High settings, not the VRAM or the CPU. The Ultra preset shows a different story: 75 FPS at 1080p, 61 FPS at 1440p, and 45 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops from 1080p to 4K are 40% for Ultra, 41% for High, 41% for Medium, and 41% for Low. This consistency across all settings tiers is a strong signal that the GPU is the dominant scaling factor — if the CPU were the bottleneck, we'd see smaller percentage drops at higher settings because the CPU load wouldn't increase proportionally with resolution.

The interpretation is straightforward: at 1080p, the CPU is the limiting component, especially at Medium and above, because the frame rates are high enough that the GPU isn't saturated. At 1440p, the system is balanced, with both components contributing to the bottleneck. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as evidenced by the fact that Ultra settings only cost 5 FPS compared to High (45 vs 47 FPS), while Low to Medium costs 17 FPS (80 to 63 FPS). This means that pushing to 4K resolution is viable, but you're trading frame rate for visual fidelity, and the CPU headroom at 4K means the game is fully GPU-bound.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, but just barely. The measured data shows an average of 45 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is playable for a flight simulator, but you'll be at the lower end of the smoothness spectrum, especially during dense scenery or weather events where the minimum FPS could drop below the average.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain high frame rates?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the combo averages 64 FPS, which is a good balance of visual quality and smoothness. If you prefer maximum performance, 1920x1080 with Low settings yields 135 FPS, but that sacrifices graphical detail. The 1440p Medium setting at 85 FPS is a strong middle ground.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H has an average benchmark score of 32697, placing it in the 83rd percentile. It is virtually identical to the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, 0.1% ahead). The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 32750, which is 0.2% higher, meaning there's no practical performance difference between these chips.

Q: Is the GPU's 16 GB VRAM enough for this game?

A: The data indicates yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo still maintains a 45 FPS average, and the 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures texture streaming doesn't cause stutters. The GPU's 16 GB capacity is more than sufficient for Flight Simulator's highest texture quality, as the frame rate drops are consistent with compute load, not memory overflow.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values at Medium settings?

A: The measured minimum FPS values for Medium settings are 89 FPS at 1920x1080, 72 FPS at 2560x1440, and 53 FPS at 3840x2160. These figures show that the combo maintains playable minimums even at 4K, but the margin shrinks as resolution increases.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900M has an average benchmark score of 97487, placing it in the 94th percentile. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97131), 4.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101872), and 5.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92466). These are professional cards, but the RX 7900M holds its own in compute performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Radeon RX 7900M ranks 1229 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the upper half of the database, roughly in the 59th percentile of all combos tested. This ranking is notable because it pairs a mobile CPU (83rd percentile among CPUs) with a high-end mobile GPU (94th percentile among GPUs), and the resulting rank is lower than either component's individual percentile. This discrepancy is typical for a game like Flight Simulator, which is more CPU-sensitive than most titles — the CPU's single-thread performance at 1743 in Cinebench R23 is good, but not exceptional, and this drags the overall combo ranking down.

The rank of 1229 out of 2996 means there are 1228 combos that perform better, and 1767 that perform worse. This puts the combo in a solid middle-upper tier, but it also signals that there's headroom for improvement — if you were to pair this CPU with a stronger GPU, the ranking would likely improve, but the data suggests that the CPU is the limiting factor in this pairing. The GPU's 94th percentile score (97487) is significantly higher than the CPU's 83rd percentile (32697), and in a game where the CPU's single-thread performance drives the simulation loop, this imbalance shows up in the overall ranking. For context, the CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600T, scores nearly identically in synthetic tests, so swapping the CPU wouldn't change much, but the data indicates that the RX 7900M is not being fully utilized in this configuration, particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU becomes the bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings for this combo depend on your target resolution and whether you prioritize smoothness or visual fidelity. For 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the sweet spot: 105 FPS average with a minimum of 89 FPS, which provides a very smooth experience without the massive visual downgrade of Low (135 FPS but with significantly reduced detail). The High preset at 79 FPS is also playable, but the 26 FPS drop from Medium to High is steep, and the Ultra preset at 75 FPS offers only 4 FPS more than High, making Ultra the worst value at 1080p.

For 2560x1440, the Medium preset again stands out with 85 FPS average and a 72 FPS minimum, which is excellent for a flight simulator. The High preset at 64 FPS is acceptable, but if you want to ensure smooth panning over complex terrain, Medium is the safer choice. The Low preset at 109 FPS is overkill for this resolution, and the Ultra preset at 61 FPS is too close to the 60 FPS threshold for comfort when the minimum FPS could dip lower.

For 3840x2160, the situation changes because the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The Low preset at 80 FPS is the only setting that provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, but it sacrifices most of the visual fidelity that makes Flight Simulator immersive. The Medium preset at 63 FPS average with a 53 FPS minimum is the recommended choice — it's slightly below 60 FPS on average, but the 53 FPS minimum is still playable, and the visual upgrade from Low to Medium is significant. The High preset at 47 FPS and Ultra at 45 FPS are both too close to the 30 FPS threshold for comfort, and the small difference between them (2 FPS) makes High pointless at 4K — if you're going to accept 47 FPS, you might as well use Ultra for the better textures.

The overall recommendation is to use Medium settings at any resolution. At 1080p, it delivers 105 FPS; at 1440p, it delivers 85 FPS; at 4K, it delivers 63 FPS. This preset provides the best balance of frame rate and visual quality across all resolutions, and the minimum FPS values (89, 72, and 53 respectively) indicate that the combo remains stable even during demanding scenes. If you have a high-refresh-rate display at 1080p, Low settings at 135 FPS can maximize the smoothness, but for general play, Medium is the settings preset that the data supports as the most playable experience for this specific CPU-GPU combination.