Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 1524th out of 2996 tested combos in the database, placing it just past the midpoint of all tested systems for this game.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores nearly identically to the Intel Xeon 6520P (0% delta), while sitting 1.5% behind the AMD EPYC 4564P, 1.9% behind the AMD EPYC 9175F, and 2.1% behind the AMD EPYC 4565P in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the GPU's relative standing among all tested graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT holds the 72nd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 27425 places it on par with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (0% delta), 0.5% behind the RTX 3090, 1.1% ahead of the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell, and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20.

Q: What is the best average FPS achieved at 1080p with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 121 FPS average. Medium settings deliver 94 FPS, High delivers 71 FPS, and Ultra drops to 67 FPS.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows 40 FPS average at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which is technically playable but noticeably below the 60 FPS threshold. Dropping to High settings at 4K yields 42 FPS, while Medium reaches 56 FPS.

Q: What is the significance of the CPU's 96th percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs tested, indicating it is a top-tier processor. This is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-thread and physics workloads.

---

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus brings 24 cores and 24 threads to the table, running at a 3.70 GHz base clock and boosting up to 5.50 GHz. This Arrow Lake Refresh processor, built on a 3 nm TSMC process, features a 36 MB shared L3 cache alongside 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core. Its memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 further supports the data-heavy demands of a flight simulator.

In synthetic testing, this CPU scores 44253 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2439 in single-core. The single-core performance is particularly telling — Microsoft Flight Simulator's simulation loop, which handles aircraft physics, weather, and terrain loading, tends to favor strong single-thread performance. The 5.50 GHz boost clock gives this processor headroom for exactly those kinds of workloads.

The PassMark multithread score of 68574 and physics score of 4064 show robust computational throughput. The data compression score of 804322 and floating point math score of 229491 indicate the CPU can handle the complex aerodynamic calculations and world-streaming tasks that Flight Simulator generates constantly. The 96th percentile standing among all CPUs means this processor is unlikely to be the bottleneck in most scenarios.

Looking at its rivals, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus effectively trades blows with enterprise-class Xeon and EPYC processors. The 0% delta versus the Intel Xeon 6520P is remarkable — a desktop part matching a server chip in aggregate benchmarks. The 1.5-2.1% deficits against the EPYC 4564P, 9175F, and 4565P are minor and unlikely to manifest as perceptible differences in gaming.

For Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with positional data, render terrain tiles, and simulate weather systems. With 24 threads, there is ample parallel capacity for the game's multi-threaded rendering tasks, while the high boost clock ensures the main simulation thread isn't starved. The combination of high core count and high clock speed is unusual and well-suited to this title.

---

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip at 7 nm. It carries 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU runs at a 2321 MHz base clock, boosts to 2581 MHz, and has a game clock of 2424 MHz. Its 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines produce 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

In Flight Simulator, the GPU's primary responsibility is rendering dense scenery, volumetric clouds, and complex lighting. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is worth noting — this game streams vast amounts of texture data as you fly across varied terrain. The 384 GB/s bandwidth helps move that data efficiently, though the game's engine is known to be demanding on memory throughput.

The GPU sits in the 72nd percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 27425. Its nearest rivals show an interesting spread: it matches the RTX 4070 Mobile exactly (0% delta), trails the RTX 3090 by just 0.5%, leads the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell by 1.1%, and sits 1.5% behind the Radeon Pro Vega 20. This positions the RX 6700 XT as a solid mid-to-high-range performer that can hold its own against much more expensive options.

The DirectX 12 benchmark score of 77 (PassMark) and Vulkan score of 93500 (Geekbench) suggest the GPU handles modern APIs well, which matters for Flight Simulator's DirectX 12 rendering path. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2435 provides another data point for synthetic performance.

At 4K resolution, the GPU's limitations become apparent — the measured FPS at Ultra settings drops to 40. This suggests the RX 6700 XT's 13.21 TFLOPS of compute and 384 GB/s bandwidth are stretched thin by the extreme pixel density and shader complexity at 2160p. The 12 GB VRAM is adequate but not generous for a game that can consume large texture caches.

---

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern: this combo performs best at 1080p and 1440p with Medium or High settings, while 4K requires compromises.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 121 FPS, Medium hits 94 FPS, High reaches 71 FPS, and Ultra drops to 67 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 27 FPS but likely brings substantial visual improvements in a game where terrain detail and cloud rendering matter. High to Ultra only costs 4 FPS, making Ultra a reasonable choice at 1080p if you want maximum fidelity without a major frame rate penalty.

At 2560x1440, the picture shifts. Low gives 97 FPS, Medium provides 76 FPS, High delivers 57 FPS, and Ultra falls to 54 FPS. The Medium setting here appears to be the sweet spot — it maintains a 76 FPS average with a minimum of 64 FPS, which should feel smooth during most flight maneuvers. High and Ultra both dip below 60 FPS, which may introduce visible stutter during fast descents or dense cloud coverage.

At 3840x2160, even Medium only manages 56 FPS (47 min, 64 max), while High sits at 42 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS. Low settings achieve 72 FPS, but at that point the visual downgrade likely undermines the purpose of playing a simulator renowned for its scenery.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Ultra at 67 FPS or 1440p Medium at 76 FPS. If you prioritize smoothness, 1440p Medium offers the best balance of resolution and frame rate. If visual fidelity is paramount, 1080p Ultra provides near-maximum quality while staying above 60 FPS. For 4K, only Low settings (72 FPS) remain fully playable, but this sacrifices the visual richness that defines the game.

---

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 1524 out of 2996 tested combinations, this system sits just past the halfway point of all tested configurations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This placement is interesting given the individual component standings: the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile, while the GPU sits in the 72nd percentile. This disparity suggests the GPU is the limiting factor pulling the overall rank down.

The CPU's near-identical synthetic score to the Intel Xeon 6520P (0% delta) and its slight deficits to AMD EPYC parts (1.5-2.1%) indicate the processor is capable of feeding even more powerful GPUs. Meanwhile, the GPU's score being 0.5% behind the RTX 3090 in average benchmark terms is notable — the RX 6700 XT is a smaller, more modest card that happens to compete closely with a flagship in aggregate metrics.

The rank of 1524 out of 2996 means roughly half of tested systems outperform this combo in Flight Simulator. Given that the game is notoriously demanding and that the GPU is an older RDNA 2 part, this placement is consistent with expectations. The data indicates the combo would benefit most from a GPU upgrade, as the CPU has substantial headroom — evidenced by its top-tier percentile ranking.

---

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four quality settings, providing a complete picture of this combo's performance envelope.

1920x1080:

• Low: 121 FPS average
• Medium: 94 FPS average (80 min, 108 max)
• High: 71 FPS average
• Ultra: 67 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 97 FPS average
• Medium: 76 FPS average (64 min, 87 max)
• High: 57 FPS average
• Ultra: 54 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 72 FPS average
• Medium: 56 FPS average (47 min, 64 max)
• High: 42 FPS average
• Ultra: 40 FPS average

The progression across settings is consistent: each step up in quality costs roughly 15-25% of the previous frame rate. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 54 FPS (121 to 67), while at 4K it's only 32 FPS (72 to 40). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions suggests the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as pixel count increases.

The min/max data for Medium settings shows the variance: at 1080p, the spread is 28 FPS (80-108); at 1440p, it's 23 FPS (64-87); at 4K, it's 17 FPS (47-64). This tightening variance at higher resolutions further indicates the GPU is the limiting factor — when the GPU is saturated, frame times become more consistent.

---

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals which component is the bottleneck at each stage.

At Low settings, the progression is 121 FPS (1080p) → 97 FPS (1440p) → 72 FPS (4K). This represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p and an additional 26% drop from 1440p to 4K. The relatively modest scaling suggests the CPU is still contributing meaningfully at Low settings, where the GPU has less work to do per frame.

At Medium settings, the numbers are 94 → 76 → 56 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19%, and from 1440p to 4K is 26%. Similar scaling to Low, but the absolute values are lower.

At High settings, the progression is 71 → 57 → 42 FPS. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 20%, and 1440p to 4K is 26%. At Ultra, the numbers are 67 → 54 → 40 FPS, with drops of 19% and 26% respectively.

The consistent scaling pattern across all settings — roughly 20% for the first resolution step and 26% for the second — indicates the GPU is the primary limiter. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between resolutions, as the simulation workload would cap performance regardless of pixel count.

The 4K numbers tell the clearest story: at 4K Ultra, the combo delivers 40 FPS, which is only 60% of the 1080p Ultra result of 67 FPS. The GPU's 13.21 TFLOPS and 384 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 2160p with maximum quality settings. The 12 GB VRAM also becomes a consideration at this resolution, where texture sets can exceed memory capacity.

For users targeting 4K, the data suggests either dropping to Medium settings (56 FPS) or accepting that this combo is better suited to 1080p and 1440p gaming. The CPU's high percentile ranking implies it could drive a more powerful GPU at 4K without becoming a limiting factor, making the RX 6700 XT the clear upgrade path for this system.