Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a system that is heavily GPU-bound in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the CPU headroom becoming apparent only at lower resolutions. At 1080p High settings, the combo delivers 74 FPS, which drops to 60 FPS at 1440p and further to 44 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40.5% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K, a steep decline that indicates the graphics card is the primary limiting factor as pixel count increases.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all quality presets. With Low settings, the system produces 127 FPS at 1080p, 102 FPS at 1440p, and 75 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K here is 52 FPS, or roughly 41%. Medium settings show 99 FPS at 1080p, 79 FPS at 1440p, and 59 FPS at 4K, a 40 FPS reduction. Ultra settings produce 71 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K, a 29 FPS drop.

The relative uniformity of these percentage drops across presets is telling. Regardless of whether the game runs at Low or Ultra, the 4K penalty sits in the 40-41% range relative to 1080p. This consistency points to a purely resolution-driven bottleneck rather than a settings-driven one. The RX 6750 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth appears adequate for the game's demands at these resolutions, but the raw compute throughput of 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 simply cannot maintain higher frame rates as the pixel workload expands.

Notably, the gap between 1440p and 4K is larger than the gap between 1080p and 1440p at every settings level. For High settings, the 1080p-to-1440p drop is 14 FPS (74 to 60), while the 1440p-to-4K drop is 16 FPS (60 to 44). This accelerating degradation as resolution increases is characteristic of a GPU reaching the limits of its memory bandwidth and shading capacity. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, while respectable for the RX 6000 series, becomes increasingly strained as the frame buffer grows.

The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combination, where the Core Ultra 7 265's capabilities can still exert some influence. At 127 FPS on Low settings, the system approaches the kind of frame rates that would be limited by CPU draw-call processing rather than GPU rendering. However, the 20-core, 20-thread processor with a 5.30 GHz boost clock never becomes the dominant constraint at higher resolutions, where the GPU's workload clearly dwarfs any CPU-side bottlenecks in this flight simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT achieves a combo rank of 1304 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the 56.5th percentile of all tested combos, meaning roughly 43.5% of configurations outperform it while the majority of tested systems fall behind. For a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU, this ranking reflects the GPU's position as the performance ceiling.

The CPU itself ranks in the 93rd percentile against all processors, a strong showing that places it well above the median. Its average benchmark score of 64640 sits just 0.3% below the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823) and 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104). Conversely, it edges out the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 7343 by 0.7%. These rival deltas are remarkably tight, all within a single percentage point, indicating that the Core Ultra 7 265 is positioned in an extremely competitive performance band where silicon lottery and thermal conditions could easily flip the ordering.

The GPU, however, tells a different story. Its 71st percentile ranking against all GPUs is respectable but unremarkable. The Radeon RX 6750 XT's average benchmark score of 26011 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25891, +0.5% delta), the AMD FirePro W7100 (25856, +0.6%), the AMD FirePro D700 (25842, +0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740, +1.1%). These nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of the RX 6750 XT's score, a clustering that underscores how competitive this GPU segment is and how small the margins are between nominally different products.

The discrepancy between CPU and GPU percentiles explains the overall combo ranking. A top-tier CPU cannot compensate for a mid-tier GPU in a graphically intensive title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The combo's rank of 1304 out of 2996 reflects this asymmetry. The system is neither a standout performer nor a laggard; it sits resolutely in the middle of the pack, held back by the GPU's 71st percentile positioning despite the CPU's 93rd percentile capability.

Benchmark results indicate that users seeking higher combo rankings would need to prioritize GPU upgrades over CPU changes. The Core Ultra 7 265 is already performing at a level where its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, meaning any CPU swap would yield negligible gains. The GPU, by contrast, has substantial headroom above its current position, with the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (its closest rival) representing only a 1.1% delta in the opposite direction.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1080p provides the most comfortable frame rates, with 74 FPS at High settings and 71 FPS at Ultra. At 1440p, High settings yield 60 FPS and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. At 4K, even High settings only produce 44 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold many users prefer.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 74 at 1080p to 60 at 1440p and 44 at 4K. This represents a 40.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The pattern is similar across all presets, with Low settings dropping from 127 to 75 FPS (41% reduction) and Ultra from 71 to 42 FPS (41% reduction).

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in this game?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The Core Ultra 7 265 ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the RX 6750 XT ranks in the 71st percentile among GPUs. The steep FPS drops as resolution increases, despite the CPU's strength, confirm that the graphics card cannot keep pace with the processor's capabilities.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS at Medium settings?

A: At 1080p Medium, the system produces a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 113 FPS, with an average of 99 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 68 to 91 FPS (average 79). At 4K Medium, the range is 50 to 67 FPS (average 59).

Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested combinations?

A: This pairing ranks 1304th out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the 56.5th percentile. The CPU contributes a 93rd percentile position, but the GPU's 71st percentile ranking pulls the overall combo down to the middle of the field.

Q: Is the 12 GB VRAM sufficient for 4K gaming?

A: The measured data shows playable frame rates at 4K on Low settings (75 FPS) and Medium settings (59 FPS), indicating the 12 GB memory capacity is not the primary constraint. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth and 13.31 TFLOPS compute throughput limit performance more than the memory capacity at these resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce 127 FPS average, creating a smooth experience well above typical display refresh rates. Medium settings yield 99 FPS average with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 113 FPS, showing tight frame pacing. High settings reduce the average to 74 FPS, while Ultra settings bring it down to 71 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 56 FPS, demonstrating that settings choices significantly impact performance at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance envelope tightens. Low settings still produce a strong 102 FPS average. Medium settings drop to 79 FPS average with a range of 68 to 91 FPS. High settings yield exactly 60 FPS average, which aligns with common 60 Hz monitor refresh rates but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes. Ultra settings produce 57 FPS average, dipping below the 60 FPS threshold. The 1440p results show a 45 FPS spread from Low to Ultra, a narrower range than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become pronounced. Low settings produce 75 FPS average, which remains playable. Medium settings drop to 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 67 FPS. High settings yield 44 FPS average, while Ultra settings fall to 42 FPS. The 4K spread from Low to Ultra is only 33 FPS, indicating that settings adjustments have diminishing returns when the GPU is already saturated at this resolution.

The Medium settings data provides the only complete min/max FPS measurements across all resolutions. At 1080p, the 84-113 FPS range represents a 29 FPS variance. At 1440p, the 68-91 FPS range shows a 23 FPS variance. At 4K, the 50-67 FPS range narrows to a 17 FPS variance. This tightening of frame time variance at higher resolutions suggests the GPU becomes more consistently utilized as the bottleneck, reducing the impact of scene complexity fluctuations.

Comparing across resolutions at identical settings, the largest absolute drop occurs on Low settings, falling from 127 FPS at 1080p to 102 FPS at 1440p (25 FPS) and then to 75 FPS at 4K (another 27 FPS). The High settings show drops of 14 FPS (1080p to 1440p) and 16 FPS (1440p to 4K). Medium settings drop 20 FPS and then another 20 FPS across the same resolution steps. Ultra settings drop 14 FPS and then 15 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT serves as the performance bottleneck in this configuration, and the measured FPS data reflects its capabilities clearly. With 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, the GPU has a moderate compute configuration that produces 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The 40 ray tracing cores support DirectX 12 Ultimate, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering workload appears to stress traditional rasterization more heavily.

The GPU's clock behavior is notable. The base clock of 2150 MHz boosts to 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz. This 450 MHz boost range suggests the card has significant thermal and power headroom, though the 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU indicate the power delivery requirements are substantial. The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory operates at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

The 4K results reveal the GPU's fundamental limits. At 4K Ultra, the system produces 42 FPS, and at 4K High, 44 FPS. These sub-45 FPS results indicate the GPU cannot sustain the pixel throughput required for smooth 4K gameplay at higher settings. Even at 4K Low, the 75 FPS result, while playable, shows the GPU working near its ceiling. The 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 416.0 GTexel/s texture rate are insufficient for the demands of 4K rendering in this title.

The GPU's 71st percentile ranking against all GPUs places it in the upper-mid range of graphics cards. Its nearest rivals, all within 1.1% of its average benchmark score of 26011, include the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, AMD FirePro W7100, AMD FirePro D700, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile. This clustering indicates that the RX 6750 XT is positioned in a tightly contested performance tier where product differentiation is minimal.

The transition from 1080p to 1440p shows the GPU's memory bandwidth becoming a more significant factor. The 192-bit bus, while adequate at 1080p, struggles to maintain frame rates as the resolution increases. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is competitive for the RX 6000 series, but the data suggests it is a limiting factor at higher resolutions where memory access patterns become more demanding.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 provides substantial computational headroom that the GPU cannot fully utilize in Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 20 cores and 20 threads operating at a 2.40 GHz base clock and 5.30 GHz boost clock, the processor delivers exceptional multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216 and single-core score of 5960 demonstrate strong capabilities in both threaded and single-threaded workloads.

The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking against all processors confirms its high-end positioning. Its average benchmark score of 64640 places it in a cluster of server-class processors including the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, -0.3% delta), AMD EPYC 9124 (65104, -0.7%), Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, +0.3%), and AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, +0.7%). These four rivals are all within 0.7% of the Core Ultra 7 265's score, indicating exceptional performance parity across this processor tier.

The 20-core configuration with 30 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample resources for the game's background simulation tasks. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth on a dual-channel DDR5 interface supports rapid data access, while the 3 nm process node from TSMC with 17,800 million transistors in a 243 mm² die size demonstrates modern manufacturing efficiency. The 65 W TDP is notably low for a processor of this capability.

In this game, the CPU's role becomes evident at 1080p Low settings, where the 127 FPS result approaches the range where CPU draw-call limitations typically emerge. The PassMark single-thread score of 4689 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960 indicate strong per-core performance that handles the game's main thread efficiently. However, the fact that the system still achieves higher FPS at 1440p (102 FPS on Low) suggests the CPU is not yet the limiting factor even at 1080p.

The processor's multi-threaded capabilities, demonstrated by the PassMark multi-thread score of 49682 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42216, support the game's background tasks such as terrain streaming and AI traffic simulation. The 17,800 million transistors provide substantial compute resources, yet the measured FPS data shows these capabilities go underutilized because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to require more CPU input.

The CPU's 20 threads without hyper-threading (20 cores, 20 threads) represents a design choice that favors physical cores over logical ones. This configuration, combined with the 3 MB L2 cache per core and 192 KB L1 cache per core, ensures each core has sufficient local cache for the game's simulation logic. The 5.30 GHz boost clock provides the single-thread performance that flight simulators often require for their primary simulation loop.