Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents one of the most demanding rendering workloads in the benchmark database, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT produces a revealing performance profile. The measured data shows a system that transitions from a smooth, high-refresh experience at 1080p to a borderline playable one at 4K, with the scaling behavior between resolutions pointing clearly to where the bottleneck lies. This analysis breaks down the FPS measurements, the role of each component, and what the data implies for users of this specific configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression across the three tested resolutions tells a textbook story of GPU-bound scaling. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 106 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops that to 85 FPS, a reduction of approximately 20%. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls to 63 FPS, which is another 26% drop from the 1440p result. This consistent, steep decline with each pixel-count increase is the signature of a graphics card that is working at its limits.

However, the scaling pattern changes dramatically when looking at higher presets. At Ultra settings, the averages are 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The performance cost of moving from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra is a 12 FPS loss, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 12 FPS. This is a notable observation: the absolute FPS drop from one resolution to the next is nearly identical at Ultra, suggesting that the game’s most demanding settings create a workload where the GPU is consistently saturated, and each additional pixel has a similar marginal cost.

The data indicates that the limiting component in this configuration is almost certainly the GPU. At 1080p Low, the Core Ultra 7 265 is likely not being fully utilized, as the 106 FPS result is high enough to suggest the CPU is feeding frames efficiently. As resolution increases, the frame rate drops proportionally to the pixel count, which is the classic behavior of a GPU-limited scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across different resolutions, particularly at lower settings. The fact that the 4K Low result (63 FPS) is significantly lower than the 1080p Low result (106 FPS) confirms that the Radeon RX 7600 XT, not the processor, is the primary constraint on frame delivery.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 106, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is this system capable of handling 4K resolution in this game?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 3840x2160, the system averages 63 FPS on Low settings, 49 FPS on Medium, 37 FPS on High, and 35 FPS on Ultra. The Ultra preset is the only one that dips into the low-30s range, which is generally considered marginal for a smooth experience.

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

A: The loss depends on the preset. On Low settings, the average drops from 106 FPS to 85 FPS. On Medium, it drops from 82 FPS to 66 FPS. On High, it falls from 62 FPS to 50 FPS, and on Ultra, it goes from 59 FPS to 47 FPS.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 85 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 47 FPS. This represents a performance cost of 38 FPS for the highest visual fidelity.

Q: Does the game show a minimum FPS value for the High and Ultra presets?

A: The data only provides minimum FPS values for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 70 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 56 FPS; and at 4K Medium, it is 42 FPS. No min or max values are listed for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1872 out of 2996 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the defining factor in this system’s gaming performance. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, it offers a substantial memory pool that is not typically the limiting factor at the tested settings. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s, which is sufficient for the data demands of a flight simulator’s terrain streaming. The GPU’s boost clock of 2755 MHz is aggressive, and the 2048 shading units are the workhorses that determine the raw fill rate for this title.

The benchmark data shows that the RX 7600 XT operates in a performance tier where it sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, which scores 0.7% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690, which scores 0.3% lower. This indicates that the card is positioned in a competitive mid-range segment, and its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator aligns with that positioning. The card’s 22.57 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is the theoretical peak, but the measured results show that real-world gaming performance is dictated by how efficiently that compute is used in this specific engine.

The 16 GB VRAM buffer is a notable asset. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of geographical data, having a large memory pool prevents stuttering and texture pop-in that can plague cards with smaller buffers. While the measured FPS data does not explicitly show VRAM usage, the consistency of the frame times, particularly at Medium settings where min FPS is recorded, suggests that the memory subsystem is not a bottleneck. The GPU’s 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs handle the pixel and texture processing, and the scaling data suggests that these units are the primary constraint as resolution climbs.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1872 out of 2996 places this specific pairing in the 37th percentile of all tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a low-middle ranking, which is consistent with the idea that the RX 7600 XT is a mid-range GPU being paired with a high-end CPU. The data suggests that many other combinations in the database achieve higher frame rates, likely because they pair the Core Ultra 7 265 with a more powerful graphics card, or they pair a less demanding CPU with the RX 7600 XT to balance the load differently.

This ranking is not a verdict on either component in isolation. The Core Ultra 7 265 itself ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, showing that it is a top-tier processor. The RX 7600 XT, ranking in the 60th percentile of GPUs, is the weaker link in this pairing. The combo rank reflects the overall system capability, and the data implies that this configuration is heavily skewed toward CPU performance, leaving the GPU as the clear limiting factor. For users looking to improve this system’s ranking, the data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield a far more significant improvement than changing the processor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is the complete set of measured FPS data for this configuration.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: Average 106 FPS.
• Medium: Average 82 FPS, with a minimum of 70 FPS and a maximum of 95 FPS.
• High: Average 62 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 59 FPS.

At 2560x1440:

• Low: Average 85 FPS.
• Medium: Average 66 FPS, with a minimum of 56 FPS and a maximum of 76 FPS.
• High: Average 50 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 47 FPS.

At 3840x2160:

• Low: Average 63 FPS.
• Medium: Average 49 FPS, with a minimum of 42 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS.
• High: Average 37 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 35 FPS.

The Medium preset is the only one where min and max FPS values are recorded. This data shows that frame pacing is stable, with the minimum FPS staying above 70 at 1080p, 56 at 1440p, and 42 at 4K. The spread between min and max is relatively tight, indicating a consistent experience without major hitches. The absence of min/max data for other presets prevents a full analysis of frame time consistency, but the averages provide a clear picture of overall performance.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience depends on the user’s display resolution and frame rate target.

For 1080p, the High preset at 62 FPS offers a good balance, but the Ultra preset at 59 FPS is nearly identical in cost. The 3 FPS difference between High and Ultra is small, suggesting that users with 60Hz displays can comfortably run Ultra settings for the best visual quality. The Low preset at 106 FPS is ideal for high-refresh monitors, and the Medium preset at 82 FPS is a strong middle ground.

For 1440p, the High preset at 50 FPS is playable but may feel slightly less smooth. The Medium preset at 66 FPS provides a more fluid experience and is arguably the sweet spot for this resolution, offering a significant jump over High at a modest visual cost. The Ultra preset at 47 FPS is the most demanding, and users should only choose it if they prioritize visual fidelity over frame smoothness.

For 4K, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 63 FPS is the only option that consistently hits a 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 49 FPS is playable, but the min FPS of 42 suggests occasional dips that might be noticeable. The High and Ultra presets, at 37 and 35 FPS respectively, are below the threshold for a smooth experience and are not recommended for most users. The data clearly indicates that 4K gaming with this combo requires significant settings compromises.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It features a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. In the broader CPU benchmark database, it scores an average of 64,640 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P, which is 0.3% slower, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which is 0.3% faster.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the complex simulation logic, physics, and draw-call submission. The game is known for being CPU-intensive, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. However, the measured FPS data for this combo shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the 106 FPS result is high, but it is not an outlier that suggests CPU saturation. The fact that the FPS scales down so predictably with resolution increases indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint throughout.

The Core Ultra 7 265’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5960, is likely sufficient to feed the RX 7600 XT without causing a CPU-induced frame cap. The processor’s 20 threads and 5.30 GHz boost clock provide ample headroom for the game’s simulation overhead, even when the GPU is fully occupied. The data implies that this CPU is overqualified for the GPU it is paired with, as the system’s performance ceiling is defined by the graphics card’s capabilities, not the processor’s. A less powerful CPU could potentially achieve identical FPS numbers in this game with this GPU, given the observed scaling patterns.