Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the AMD Radeon RX 580 lands near the bottom of the tested combos. The data places this specific configuration at rank 2733 out of 2996 total combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly 8.8% of tested systems. This is a clear indicator that the RX 580, a graphics card from the Polaris generation, is the primary bottleneck in this pairing, struggling to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions and settings despite the substantial processing power available from the Core Ultra 7 265.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2733 out of 2996 is a stark warning for anyone considering this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This position reflects the measured FPS across all tested resolutions and settings, showing that the system's overall capability is heavily constrained by the graphics subsystem. The CPU itself is a top-tier performer, with a 93rd percentile ranking among all tested processors and an average benchmark score of 64640, which places it within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 7343 and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F. However, the GPU tells a different story, sitting at the 53rd percentile for all GPUs with an average score of 12928, nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER which trails by only 0.4%.

The disparity between the components is the defining characteristic of this combo. The CPU's massive multi-threaded throughput, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, is largely wasted in this flight simulator context because the RX 580 cannot translate that processing capability into frame rate. Benchmark results indicate that the system is GPU-limited in nearly every scenario, which means the combo's low rank is not a reflection of CPU weakness but rather the stark mismatch between a modern high-end processor and an end-of-life graphics card from 2017. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in raw compute include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and the AMD Radeon 740M, both of which are not known for high-end desktop gaming performance, confirming the RX 580's position as a dated entry-level solution.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only at the lowest settings. The data shows an average of 54 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At Medium settings, the average drops to 42 FPS, which is still playable, but High and Ultra presets yield 31 FPS and 30 FPS respectively, indicating a significant performance cliff.

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this hardware?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the only viable resolution for a smooth experience, and only with Low or Medium settings. At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 24 (Ultra) to 43 (Low), which makes even Low settings borderline for consistent playability. At 3840x2160, all settings produce averages below 32 FPS, which is not suitable for a flight simulator requiring precise control.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265's CPU performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score of 64640 is 0.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and 0.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 7343. It trails the AMD EPYC 4464P by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 9124 by 0.7%. These are marginal differences, showing the Core Ultra 7 265 is competitively positioned among high-end server and desktop processors.

Q: Why does the system perform so poorly in 4K despite having a strong CPU?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The RX 580's 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a maximum average of 32 FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings, while Ultra settings drop to 18 FPS, clearly showing the GPU cannot handle the pixel throughput required at that resolution.

Q: What are the closest performance competitors to the RX 580 in this database?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score of 12928 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, 0.1% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12986, 0.4% faster). It also sits close to the AMD Radeon 740M (12870, 0.5% slower) and the AMD FirePro W5100 (12847, 0.6% slower), indicating it performs in the same tier as these mid-range and mobile options.

Q: Is the 20-core CPU configuration beneficial for this game?

A: While the CPU's 20 cores and 20 threads provide immense multi-threaded capability, Microsoft Flight Simulator does not appear to leverage it effectively in this pairing. The measured FPS shows no scenario where the CPU is the bottleneck, as even the weakest GPU settings produce low frame rates. The CPU's performance is essentially untapped, with the GPU capping the system's output well below what the processor could support.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance drop as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 54 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 with the same settings, the average falls to 43 FPS, a reduction of approximately 20%. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average is 32 FPS, which is a 41% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern shows that the RX 580's pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth are quickly overwhelmed as the number of pixels rendered increases.

The pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For High settings, the transition from 1080p (31 FPS) to 1440p (25 FPS) represents a 19% decrease, and from 1080p to 4K (19 FPS) a 39% decrease. Medium settings show a similar trend: 42 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, starting at 30 FPS at 1080p and dropping to 24 FPS at 1440p and 18 FPS at 4K. These numbers indicate that every resolution increase costs roughly 20% performance, which is a heavy penalty that the Core Ultra 7 265 cannot mitigate.

The limiting component is unambiguously the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, as the processor's workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the data shows a consistent and significant FPS decline with each resolution step, which is the hallmark of graphics hardware being saturated. The RX 580's 32 ROPs and 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply not enough for the demands of 4K flight simulation, and even 1440p pushes the card to its limits.

Settings Recommendations

For a playable experience, the data strongly suggests that users should prioritize lower settings presets and stick to 1080p. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system produces an average of 54 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth, consistent frame rate. Medium settings at the same resolution yield 42 FPS, which is still acceptable for a flight simulator where precise control is more important than ultra-smooth motion. High and Ultra presets at 1080p produce 31 FPS and 30 FPS respectively, which are borderline and may lead to stutter in dense urban environments or during complex weather scenarios.

If a user insists on higher resolutions, the data indicates that only Low settings are viable. At 2560x1440 with Low, the average is 43 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. At 3840x2160 with Low, the average drops to 32 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play. The Medium preset at 1440p (34 FPS) and 4K (25 FPS) is not recommended, and High and Ultra at any resolution above 1080p produce averages below 31 FPS, making them unsuitable for practical use.

The best experience per the measured rows is unequivocally 1920x1080 with Low settings. This configuration provides the highest average frame rate (54 FPS) and avoids the sub-30 FPS dips seen at higher settings. For users willing to trade some visual fidelity for smoother gameplay, Medium at 1080p (42 FPS) is a reasonable compromise, but the jump to High or Ultra does not offer a proportionate visual benefit given the significant FPS penalty. The data suggests that the RX 580 is simply not capable of running this game at high quality presets, and users should adjust their expectations accordingly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system's performance is as follows: Low settings yield an average of 54 FPS without min/max values recorded. Medium settings produce an average of 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 48 FPS, showing a relatively stable frame time. High settings drop the average to 31 FPS, and Ultra settings average 30 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal (1 FPS), suggesting both presets are equally demanding on the GPU and should be avoided for smoother play.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages decrease across the board. Low settings average 43 FPS, Medium settings average 34 FPS with a range of 29 to 39 FPS, High settings average 25 FPS, and Ultra settings average 24 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, mirroring the 1080p pattern. The minimum FPS at Medium (29 FPS) indicates occasional dips that could be noticeable during gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings average 32 FPS, Medium settings average 25 FPS with a minimum of 21 FPS and a maximum of 29 FPS, High settings average 19 FPS, and Ultra settings average 18 FPS. The variance at Medium settings (8 FPS spread) shows instability, and all averages are below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered the minimum for a playable experience. The data shows a clear degradation curve where the GPU is progressively overwhelmed as resolution increases, with no settings preset able to salvage 4K performance.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The processor features a substantial cache hierarchy, including 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache, totaling 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. This hardware configuration places it in the top 7% of all CPUs in the database, with a 93rd percentile ranking.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the complex physics, flight dynamics, and world streaming calculations. The benchmark results indicate the processor is more than capable of these tasks, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960. However, the measured FPS data shows that the system never comes close to CPU saturation. The GPU is the clear limiting factor, as the frame rates are consistently low across all resolutions and settings, even when the CPU's massive multi-threading capability should be fully engaged.

The data suggests that the Core Ultra 7 265's performance is largely untapped in this pairing. The CPU's nearest rivals, including the AMD EPYC 7343 and EPYC 9124, show similar average benchmark scores, but this does not translate into better in-game performance because the RX 580 holds the system back. The 20 cores and 20 threads are designed for heavily threaded workloads, but Microsoft Flight Simulator, while demanding on the CPU, cannot utilize this processor's full potential when paired with such a weak GPU. This is a classic bottleneck scenario where upgrading the CPU would yield no measurable FPS improvement, and only a GPU upgrade would address the system's performance limitations.