Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a specific performance profile that is heavily dictated by the graphics card. The data shows a system that can achieve playable frame rates at lower resolutions and settings, but which struggles significantly when pushed toward 4K or maximum graphical fidelity. This analysis breaks down the measured results, placing them in context against the broader benchmark database.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, a significant spread that allows it to handle both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads. The processor includes a 30 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for the heavy simulation logic, including physics, flight models, and AI traffic, which can be extremely demanding on single-core performance.

The benchmark results for this CPU are strong. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42,216 points in multi-core and 5,960 points in single-core tests. This single-core score is particularly relevant for flight simulators, which often rely on a few threads for the core simulation loop. Compared to its nearest rivals, the processor is well-positioned; it sits within a narrow performance band around the AMD EPYC 4464P, Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, and AMD EPYC 7343. The data shows it is essentially on par with the EPYC 4464P (a -0.3% delta in average score) and slightly ahead of the Core Ultra 7 265F (a 0.3% delta). This indicates that the 265 is a top-tier performer, placing in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tested.

However, in this specific game configuration, the CPU's immense capability is largely underutilized. The performance bottleneck is decisively on the GPU side. The measured frame rates show that even at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 78 FPS, which is a good result but not indicative of a CPU limit. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 26 FPS, a clear sign that the graphics card is overwhelmed. The CPU has the headroom to feed frames, but the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot render them fast enough. The processor's high core count and fast clocks ensure that it will not be the limiting factor in most scenarios, but the data suggests that the GPU will consistently be the component that determines the final frame rate in this pairing.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture card based on the TU116 chip. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The card has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. With 1,408 shading units, it is a capable 1080p-class card. However, its 6 GB VRAM capacity is a limiting factor for a modern, high-fidelity simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its vast, detailed scenery.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score that is very close to its nearest rivals. The data shows it is essentially on par with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% delta), while being slightly behind the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (-0.7% delta). This places the GTX 1660 SUPER as a mid-range performer, well-suited for 1080p gaming but not designed for the extreme demands of 4K.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the complex 3D world, including terrain, aircraft models, and lighting. The measured FPS data clearly shows the card's limitations. At 1080p Low, the card can manage 78 FPS, but this drops to 45 FPS at High and 43 FPS at Ultra. The jump to 1440p reveals further strain, with the Ultra setting falling to 35 FPS. At 4K, the card is clearly out of its depth, with the Low setting managing 46 FPS but the Ultra setting collapsing to just 26 FPS. The card's 6 GB VRAM buffer is likely a contributing factor at higher resolutions and settings, as the game attempts to load more textures and geometry into memory.

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

The resolution scaling pattern in the data is a textbook example of a GPU-bound scenario. Looking at the High settings across resolutions, the average frame rate drops from 45 FPS at 1080p, to 37 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 27 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40% drop in performance from 1080p to 4K. A similar trend is visible on Low settings, where the frame rate falls from 78 FPS at 1080p to 63 FPS at 1440p and 46 FPS at 4K.

This consistent and significant drop in performance as resolution increases is the definitive signature of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU's workload does not increase substantially with resolution, as it is still calculating the same simulation logic. The GPU, however, must render an exponentially larger number of pixels. The fact that the frame rate drops so sharply with resolution indicates that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the component that is being saturated. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, as the CPU's work would remain constant. Instead, the data shows that the GPU is the primary constraint, and the CPU has ample headroom to spare.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combined performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER places this system at rank 2,546 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking places it in the lower 15% of all tested configurations. This low ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU choice. While the CPU is a top-tier performer (93rd percentile), the GPU is a mid-range part (53rd percentile), and the overall system performance is dragged down by the graphics card's inability to keep up with the CPU's potential.

This ranking makes it clear that this is not a balanced configuration for a demanding game like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The high-end CPU is being paired with a low-to-mid-range GPU, creating a significant bottleneck. While the CPU ensures that the system will never be held back by processing power, the GPU limits the system to lower resolutions and settings to achieve playable frame rates. Users looking to improve this system's ranking would need to focus on upgrading the GPU, as the CPU is already a strong performer. The data suggests that this particular combo is better suited for other titles that are less GPU-intensive, but for this specific simulator, it is a severely constrained setup.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the system's performance across a matrix of resolutions and settings. The data is presented as average FPS, with some entries also including minimum and maximum values.

1920x1080:

• Low: 78 FPS average. This is the best-case scenario, providing a smooth experience.
• Medium: 60 FPS average, with a minimum of 51 FPS and a maximum of 69 FPS. This is a solid playable frame rate.
• High: 45 FPS average. This is playable but not as smooth as the lower settings.
• Ultra: 43 FPS average. The frame rate holds up surprisingly well, but the visual quality comes at a cost.

2560x1440:

• Low: 63 FPS average. Still playable, but the drop from 1080p is noticeable.
• Medium: 49 FPS average, with a minimum of 41 FPS and a maximum of 56 FPS. This is on the edge of smoothness.
• High: 37 FPS average. This is becoming less comfortable for a simulator.
• Ultra: 35 FPS average. The system is struggling to maintain a consistent frame rate.

3840x2160:

• Low: 46 FPS average. The card is working hard but is still technically playable.
• Medium: 36 FPS average, with a minimum of 31 FPS and a maximum of 41 FPS. This is a stuttery experience.
• High: 27 FPS average. This is below the threshold for smooth play.
• Ultra: 26 FPS average. The system is clearly overwhelmed at this setting.

The data shows a clear pattern: the system is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can handle up to High settings with a reasonable frame rate. At 1440p, users will need to stick to Low or Medium settings. At 4K, the system is not capable of providing a satisfactory experience, even at Low settings, where the 46 FPS average is likely to be inconsistent.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the optimal resolution. At this resolution, the system achieves an average of 60 FPS on Medium settings and 78 FPS on Low, indicating a smooth experience. Performance degrades significantly at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160.

Q: Can this combination handle Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 43 FPS, which is playable. However, at 1440p Ultra, the average drops to 35 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it falls to 26 FPS. The data suggests that Ultra settings are only viable at 1080p.

Q: Why is the performance so much lower at 4K compared to 1080p?

A: The frame rate drops by approximately 40-45% when moving from 1080p to 4K on High settings (45 FPS to 27 FPS). This significant drop indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting component, as the GPU's rendering workload increases exponentially with resolution.

Q: How does this system rank compared to other tested combinations?

A: It ranks 2,546 out of 2,996 tested combos in this game. This places it in the lower 15% of configurations, a ranking that is primarily due to the GPU being a mid-range part relative to the high-end CPU.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 a good match for the GTX 1660 SUPER?

A: The benchmark data shows a significant imbalance. The CPU is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 53rd percentile. The measured FPS indicates the GPU is the bottleneck, meaning the CPU's potential is not fully utilized in this game.

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

A: The data includes this information for all three resolutions at Medium settings. At 1080p, the range is 51-69 FPS. At 1440p, the range is 41-56 FPS. At 4K, the range is 31-41 FPS.