Microsoft Flight Simulator

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 in Microsoft Flight Simulator produces a measured set of frame rates across four presets and three resolutions. The combo ranks 823rd out of 1,795 tested combinations, placing it in the middle of the database. The CPU holds a 97th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 72nd percentile, suggesting a processor-heavy pairing. The CPU has a launch MSRP of $394, and the GPU has a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo's rank in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K + RTX 3070 combination ranks 823rd out of 1,795 tested combos.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is in the 97th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 79,102.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is in the 72nd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 28,238.

Q: What is the highest measured average FPS in this data?

A: The highest measured average is 137.7 fps at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest measured average FPS?

A: The lowest measured average is 42.1 fps at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K is 0.2% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF and the Intel Core i9-14900KF, and 0.9% behind the Intel Core i9-14900K.

GPU Role

The RTX 3070 is built on the Ampere architecture with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1500 MHz and boost clock is 1725 MHz, with memory running at 14 Gbps effective. The GPU's PassMark G3D score is 22,214, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (0.9% higher average score) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (1% higher). In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth become increasingly relevant as resolution climbs. At 4K, the measured average FPS ranges from 77.1 at Low to 42.1 at Ultra, with High at 45.2 and Medium at 61.2. The 8 GB frame buffer appears to be a limiting factor at higher presets, as the gap between Medium and High at 4K is 16.0 fps, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 3.1 fps. This suggests that beyond Medium, the GPU's memory bandwidth or capacity constrains performance more than raw shading power.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It features 30 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 50,009 and single-core score is 7,060, while PassMark single-thread performance is 4,904. The CPU's 97th percentile ranking reflects strong overall compute capability. In this game, the CPU's single-thread performance is likely to influence simulation and physics calculations, which are often serial in nature. The data shows that at 1080p, even with Low settings, the average FPS reaches 137.7, indicating that the CPU can feed the GPU effectively at lower resolutions. However, at 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 76.2, which is only 1.1 fps higher than the 4K Low result of 77.1. This suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at higher settings; instead, the GPU's rendering load dominates. The CPU's nearest rivals—the 265KF, i9-14900KF, and i9-14900K—are all within 0.9% of its average score, so the 265K's performance is consistent with top-tier desktop processors.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 823 out of 1,795 places it in the 46th percentile of all tested combinations. This is notably lower than the CPU's 97th percentile and the GPU's 72nd percentile, indicating that the pairing is not optimally balanced for this title. The CPU's high single-thread and multi-thread scores suggest it can handle demanding simulation workloads, but the GPU's mid-range standing (72nd percentile) limits the overall frame rates, especially at higher resolutions and presets. The data shows that the combo's best performance is at 1080p Low (137.7 fps), but even at 1080p Ultra it only reaches 76.2 fps. At 4K, the combo falls below 60 fps for High and Ultra presets. This mid-pack ranking reflects a system where the CPU is overqualified relative to the GPU for this game's rendering demands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists all measured average FPS values from the FACT PACK:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 45.2 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 77.1 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 61.2 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 42.1 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 65.6 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 106.0 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 81.7 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 59.8 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 78.7 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 137.7 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 108.2 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 76.2 |

At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 61.5 fps, with Low at 137.7 and Ultra at 76.2. At 1440p, the spread narrows to 46.2 fps (106.0 to 59.8). At 4K, the spread is 35.0 fps (77.1 to 42.1). The diminishing returns from preset changes at higher resolutions indicate that the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as pixel count increases.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, Low delivers 137.7 fps, but Medium still provides 108.2 fps—a difference of 29.5 fps. High and Ultra drop to 78.7 and 76.2, respectively, so Medium offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, staying well above 100 fps. At 2560x1440, Low yields 106.0 fps, Medium 81.7, High 65.6, and Ultra 59.8. Medium is the highest preset that remains above 80 fps, while High is still above 60. For a smooth experience, Medium is recommended, with High as a viable option if the user prioritizes visuals over a small frame rate margin. At 3840x2160, only Low (77.1) and Medium (61.2) exceed 60 fps. High (45.2) and Ultra (42.1) fall below 50. Therefore, Medium is the highest preset that maintains an average above 60 fps at 4K, making it the recommended choice for that resolution. The data shows that the step from Medium to High at 4K costs 16.0 fps, which is a significant drop, so users should only consider High if they can tolerate sub-60 performance.

Resolution Scaling

Comparing 1080p to 4K for each preset reveals how the system scales with pixel count. For Low settings, the average FPS drops from 137.7 at 1080p to 77.1 at 4K, a reduction of 60.6 fps. For Medium, the drop is from 108.2 to 61.2, a reduction of 47.0 fps. High falls from 78.7 to 45.2, a reduction of 33.5 fps, and Ultra from 76.2 to 42.1, a reduction of 34.1 fps. The absolute drop is largest at Low, but the relative impact is similar across presets—the 4K result is roughly half of the 1080p result for Low and Medium, while High and Ultra see a smaller absolute decline. This pattern suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity are the primary limiting factors at 4K, as the CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 7,060) is sufficient to maintain high frame rates at lower resolutions. Notably, the 1080p Ultra result (76.2) is nearly identical to the 4K Low result (77.1), indicating that the GPU's rendering load at 4K Low is comparable to that at 1080p Ultra. This implies that the RTX 3070's 8 GB VRAM and 448 GB/s bandwidth are the bottlenecks when pushing higher resolutions, rather than the CPU's compute capability.