Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 7 265 + AMD Radeon RX 6600

This combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 delivers a playable but constrained experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck across all resolutions. The data shows a system that can handle the simulator at 1080p with reasonable fluidity, but struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at higher resolutions, particularly when settings are pushed toward Ultra. The combo ranks 2316th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower quarter of the database, which aligns with the measured performance profile that favors 1080p gaming over higher-fidelity output.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a system heavily limited by the graphics card. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 92 at 1920x1080 to 74 at 2560x1440, a 19.6% reduction, and then to 55 at 3840x2160, a further 25.7% drop from 1440p. The total scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a 40.2% reduction in average frame rate, which is a significant penalty but not catastrophic for a flight simulator where absolute smoothness is less critical than in fast-paced genres.

At Medium settings, the pattern holds with slightly narrower margins: 72 FPS at 1080p drops to 58 FPS at 1440p (19.4% reduction), then to 43 FPS at 4K (25.9% reduction from 1440p). The Medium preset also provides the only min/max data in the entire dataset, showing a 36-49 FPS range at 4K, a 49-66 FPS range at 1440p, and a 61-82 FPS range at 1080p. These ranges indicate that even at the most demanding resolution, the frame time variance remains relatively contained, though the minimum of 36 FPS at 4K Medium will be noticeable in a simulator that prizes smooth camera panning.

High settings show a shallower scaling curve: 54 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p (20.4% reduction), and 32 FPS at 4K (25.6% reduction from 1440p). The 4K High result of 32 FPS is right at the edge of what most users would consider acceptable for a flight simulator, and the Ultra preset at 4K falls to 31 FPS, barely different from High. This compression between High and Ultra at 4K suggests that the GPU is saturating regardless of the preset, and the extra detail from Ultra costs almost nothing in frame rate because the card is already at its pixel throughput limit.

The scaling behavior indicates a GPU-bound scenario across all settings, but the magnitude of the drops between 1080p and 1440p versus 1440p to 4K is informative. The 1080p to 1440p transition costs roughly 19-20% of performance at every preset, while the 1440p to 4K transition costs about 25-26% at every preset. This increasing penalty with resolution is typical of a memory bandwidth constrained GPU, where the pixel fill rate demand outpaces the 224.0 GB/s available bandwidth.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 brings substantial compute resources to this pairing, with 20 cores and 20 threads running at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is an Arrow Lake-S architecture part built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU's benchmark results show a strong multicore performer, scoring 42,216 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 5,960 in single-core, with a PassMark multithread score of 49,682 and a single-thread score of 4,689.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily in physics simulation, weather computation, and AI traffic management, all of which benefit from the high single-thread performance of this processor. The single-core score of 5,960 in Cinebench R23 places it well above the threshold needed to feed the GPU with draw calls, and the 20-core configuration ensures that background simulation threads do not starve the main render thread. The data suggests that the CPU is never the limiting factor in this system, as evidenced by the consistent frame rate drops with resolution scaling — if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see flat or near-flat FPS across resolutions at the same settings.

The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database further supports its capability in this workload. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.3% faster), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (0.3% slower), AMD EPYC 7343 (0.7% slower), and AMD EPYC 9124 (0.7% faster), all of which are within a 1% band of the 265's average benchmark score of 64,640. This proximity to server-class EPYC parts in synthetic benchmarks does not directly translate to Flight Simulator performance, where the 265's 5.30 GHz boost clock and 2.40 GHz base clock provide the single-thread responsiveness that the simulator's engine requires.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the clear performance limiter in this configuration. Built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip on a 7 nm process, this GPU features 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a base clock of 1626 MHz and a boost clock of 2491 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards and becomes the critical constraint at higher resolutions.

The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its mid-range positioning: a PassMark G3D score of 15,096, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,492, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 67,623. The 63rd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the mid-range tier, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (0% difference), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (0.1% faster), NVIDIA Tesla K20m (0.3% faster), and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (0.4% slower). None of these rivals are modern gaming-focused parts, which underscores the RX 6600's position as an entry-level to mid-range gaming card.

In Flight Simulator, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at most settings, but the 4K results suggest that texture streaming and memory pressure begin to impact performance. The 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is likely the primary constraint at 4K, as the pixel throughput required to fill a 3840x2160 frame at acceptable quality exceeds what this bus can deliver. The 31-32 FPS results at 4K High and Ultra are consistent with a card that has hit its bandwidth ceiling, regardless of compute capability.

The GPU's 1,792 shading units deliver 8.928 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is adequate for the DX12 Ultimate (12_2) rendering path used by the simulator. The 28 RT cores provide some ray tracing capability, though the simulator's use of ray-traced shadows and reflections is limited, and the data does not indicate that RT workloads are a significant factor in these results.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination ranks 2316th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 22.7th percentile of all tested systems. This means that roughly 77% of tested combinations deliver better performance in this game, which is consistent with the RX 6600 being a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU. The rank reflects the GPU-limited nature of the system — the 265's 93rd percentile CPU ranking cannot compensate for the GPU's 63rd percentile ranking when the game is predominantly GPU-bound at all tested settings.

The rank of 2316 out of 2996 indicates that this system is closer to the bottom than the top of the database, but the actual measured frame rates tell a more nuanced story. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 92 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target most users would consider smooth. At 1080p Medium, the 72 FPS average is still solid, and even 1080p High at 54 FPS is workable for a simulator where frame pacing is less critical than in competitive shooters. The system only becomes truly uncomfortable at 4K, where all presets produce 55 FPS or lower.

The gap between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is the defining characteristic of this combo. A 93rd percentile CPU paired with a 63rd percentile GPU creates a system where the CPU has significant headroom, but the GPU is the limiting factor. This is not necessarily a bad pairing for Flight Simulator, as the simulator does have CPU-heavy sections, but the measured data shows that the GPU is the constraint at every resolution and setting combination tested.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to run Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the most viable resolution, with average FPS ranging from 51 at Ultra to 92 at Low. At 2560x1440, the range drops to 41-74 FPS, while 3840x2160 only achieves 31-55 FPS, making 4K impractical for smooth play.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: At every preset, the 1080p to 1440p transition costs approximately 19-20% of average FPS. For example, Low settings drop from 92 FPS at 1080p to 74 FPS at 1440p, while Medium drops from 72 to 58 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The RX 6600's 63rd percentile ranking and 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth limit performance, while the Core Ultra 7 265's 93rd percentile ranking and 5.30 GHz boost clock provide ample CPU headroom. The consistent FPS drops with resolution increase confirm GPU-bound behavior.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: The difference is minimal. High settings produce 32 FPS average at 3840x2160, while Ultra produces 31 FPS. This 1 FPS difference indicates the GPU is saturated at both presets and the extra visual fidelity from Ultra comes at almost no performance cost.

Q: Does the RX 6600's 8 GB VRAM limit performance in this game?

A: The data suggests that VRAM capacity is not a hard limit at 1080p or 1440p, but the 4K results at 31-43 FPS across High, Ultra, and Medium indicate that memory bandwidth and capacity pressures contribute to the low frame rates at that resolution.

Q: How does this combo compare to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 2316th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 23% of all systems tested. The rank reflects the GPU's mid-range positioning, as the CPU is in the top 7% of all processors.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and playable frame rates, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 is the strongest choice. The data shows 72 FPS average with a 61-82 FPS range, which provides smooth motion and responsive camera control while maintaining acceptable visual fidelity. The 61 FPS minimum ensures that even in dense scenes with heavy scenery, the frame rate stays above 60 FPS.

If visual fidelity is prioritized, High settings at 1080p produce 54 FPS average, which is still playable for a flight simulator, though the lack of min/max data means we cannot assess frame time consistency. Ultra at 1080p drops to 51 FPS, and the 3 FPS difference from High suggests that Ultra's additional effects cost little but also provide diminishing returns.

At 1440p, Medium is the only preset that maintains a 58 FPS average with a 49-66 FPS range. The 49 FPS minimum will be noticeable during low-altitude flights over dense urban areas, but the overall experience remains acceptable. High at 1440p drops to 43 FPS, which is marginal, and Ultra at 41 FPS is borderline unplayable for a simulator that requires smooth panning.

At 4K, no preset delivers a consistently playable experience. Low settings at 55 FPS are the best option, but the visual compromise is severe. Medium at 43 FPS and High/Ultra at 31-32 FPS are all below the 60 FPS threshold and will exhibit visible stutter during rapid camera movements. For 4K users, the data suggests either accepting Low settings or reducing the resolution to 1440p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 92 FPS, Medium produces 72 FPS with a 61-82 FPS range, High produces 54 FPS, and Ultra produces 51 FPS. The 20 FPS gap between Low and Medium is the largest single-step difference in the 1080p dataset, while the 3 FPS gap between High and Ultra is the smallest.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop uniformly. Low settings achieve 74 FPS, Medium achieves 58 FPS with a 49-66 FPS range, High achieves 43 FPS, and Ultra achieves 41 FPS. The 4 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is slightly larger than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU is beginning to saturate at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Low settings produce 55 FPS, Medium produces 43 FPS with a 36-49 FPS range, High produces 32 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS. The 1 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 4K indicates that the GPU is fully saturated and the extra Ultra effects are essentially free in performance terms. The 12 FPS gap between Low and Medium at 4K is the smallest between these two presets across all resolutions, further confirming the GPU is the limiting factor.

The min/max data at Medium settings provides insight into frame pacing. At 1080p, the 61-82 FPS range shows a 21 FPS spread, while at 1440p the 49-66 FPS range shows a 17 FPS spread, and at 4K the 36-49 FPS range shows a 13 FPS spread. This narrowing range with increasing resolution suggests that the GPU's consistent workload at higher resolutions reduces the variance that CPU-side simulation tasks introduce at lower resolutions, where the CPU can occasionally become a secondary bottleneck.