Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the comboRankInGame for this configuration in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H paired with the AMD Radeon 8050S ranks 2184 out of 2996 tested combinations in this game. That places it in the lower third of tested systems, meaning it will run the simulator but with noticeable compromises at higher settings.

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

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 99 FPS average. This is the highest measured result across all tested resolutions and settings, and it represents the only configuration that breaks the 90 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 8050S have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The GPU uses System Shared memory for its frame buffer, with memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the host system's memory rather than having its own dedicated VRAM pool.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H has an average benchmark score of 35670. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350, scores 35719, which is only 0.1% higher. The Intel Core 7 250H scores 35728 (0.2% higher), while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 scores 35802 (0.4% higher). The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X leads this group with 35909, a 0.7% advantage. The differences are minimal.

Q: What is the highest average FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo delivers 33 FPS average. This is the lowest measured average across all configurations, dipping below the 34 FPS High setting result at the same resolution. Both are below the 30 FPS minimum typically considered acceptable for simulation titles.

Q: Does the GPU support modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 58398, while its OpenCL score is 65818, indicating solid API-level performance for a mobile integrated GPU.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a 16-core, 22-thread mobile processor built on Meteor Lake architecture with a 7 nm process node. Its base clock is 3.90 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and it carries a 45 W TDP. The chip features 24 MB of shared L3 cache, with 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. This configuration targets high-end mobile workloads where multi-threaded throughput matters.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily about maintaining a stable frame pipeline, especially for the complex flight models, weather simulation, and terrain streaming that the game performs. The benchmark data shows the CPU's multi-core capabilities: it scores 17984.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 10356 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Single-core performance is also relevant, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 1810.5 and Geekbench single-core at 1794.

The CPU's 85th percentile ranking among all tested CPUs indicates strong overall performance. However, its nearest rivals are remarkably close: the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 trails by just 0.1%, and the Intel Core 7 250H by 0.2%. These deltas are within measurement noise, suggesting that in CPU-bound scenarios, swapping between these processors would yield imperceptible differences.

For a simulation like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to be demanding on both CPU and GPU, the Ultra 9 185H provides enough headroom at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 99 FPS, indicating that the CPU can feed frames quickly when graphical demands are minimized. The 22 threads allow the game's background tasks, such as AI traffic and scenery generation, to run without completely saturating the processor.

The CPU's memory bandwidth is rated at 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 interface. Since the GPU uses system shared memory, this bandwidth also feeds the graphics subsystem. In a simulation that streams high-resolution terrain and airport data, this shared bandwidth can become a limiting factor, particularly at 4K where the GPU needs to fetch more texture data.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 8050S is an integrated GPU based on RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm TSMC process with a die size of 308 mm². It has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The base clock is 1295 MHz with a boost clock of 2800 MHz, and the TDP is rated at 55 W. As an IGP with no dedicated VRAM, it relies entirely on system memory for its frame buffer.

The GPU's benchmark scores are respectable: Geekbench OpenCL at 65818 and Vulkan at 58398. Its 89th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it ahead of most integrated solutions, but the nearestRivals data reveals a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61896 (0.3% lower), while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 63693 (2.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M scores 63775 (2.6% higher). The Radeon 8050S sits within a narrow band of mobile GPU performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU handles the bulk of the rendering workload: terrain meshes, lighting, shadows, and post-processing effects. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo delivers only 33 FPS, while at 4K Low it reaches 59 FPS. This 26 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution underscores how much the GPU's rendering load affects performance.

The shared memory architecture is a critical factor. With no dedicated VRAM, the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The system-dependent bandwidth means that actual performance will vary based on the laptop's memory configuration. This likely contributes to the GPU being the limiting component at higher resolutions, where larger texture sets must be accessed frequently.

The GPU's 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 compute throughput is adequate for 1080p gaming but becomes strained at 1440p and 4K. The 32 ray tracing cores provide some future-proofing, but the measured FPS data shows that even without ray tracing enabled, the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates at Ultra settings. The pixel rate of 179.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 358.4 GTexel/s are solid for an IGP, yet they fall short for demanding 4K workloads.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. The goal is to find the highest quality preset that maintains a playable frame rate, with 60 FPS as the general target for smooth simulation.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 FPS and maximum of 88 FPS. This is the sweet spot: it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while offering better visual quality than Low. High settings drop to 58 FPS average, which is borderline, and Ultra falls to 55 FPS. For a simulator where smoothness matters more than visual flourishes, Medium at 1080p is the recommended choice.

At 2560x1440, Medium produces 62 FPS average with a 53 FPS minimum and 71 FPS maximum. This is just above the 60 FPS threshold, making it viable for most users. High settings drop to 47 FPS, which is noticeably less smooth, and Ultra falls to 44 FPS. Low at 80 FPS is smooth but sacrifices too much visual detail. The Medium preset at 1440p offers the best balance of visual fidelity and playability.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings achieve 59 FPS average, which is barely below the 60 FPS target. Medium delivers 46 FPS average with a 39 FPS minimum, and High and Ultra drop to 34 FPS and 33 FPS respectively. For 4K, the recommendation is Low if frame rate is the priority, or Medium if the user accepts sub-50 FPS for improved visuals. The 39 FPS minimum at Medium indicates occasional stutters, which can be problematic in a flight simulator where smooth camera movements are essential.

The data suggests that this combo is best suited to 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium, with 4K only viable at Low settings. The gap between Medium and High at all resolutions is substantial (19 FPS at 1080p, 15 FPS at 1440p, 12 FPS at 4K), indicating that the High preset demands significantly more GPU resources than Medium.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2184 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 27th percentile of tested systems. This is a low ranking, reflecting the GPU's limitations as an integrated solution. The CPU's strong performance (85th percentile) is dragged down by the GPU's more modest capabilities.

To contextualize this ranking, consider that the CPU alone sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs. Yet the combo lands in the bottom third of tested systems for this specific game. This discrepancy indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly demanding on the GPU relative to other components, and the shared memory architecture of the Radeon 8050S exacerbates the bottleneck.

The nearest rival combos are not directly listed, but the individual component rivals provide context. The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350, has a nearly identical average score (35719 vs 35670, a 0.1% difference). The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, scores 61896 versus 62108 for the Radeon 8050S, a 0.3% difference. These tiny deltas suggest that swapping either component for its nearest rival would produce nearly identical results in this game.

The ranking of 2184 out of 2996 means that roughly 812 tested combos performed worse, and 2183 performed better. For a mobile system with an integrated GPU, this is not unexpected, but it does mean that users should temper expectations for high-fidelity simulation at high resolutions. The combo is more than capable of running the game, but only at lower settings and resolutions.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best performance. Low settings produce 99 FPS average, Medium produces 77 FPS with a 65 FPS minimum and 88 FPS maximum, High produces 58 FPS average, and Ultra produces 55 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium shows a 22 FPS drop, while the drop from Medium to High is 19 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance scales down proportionally. Low settings yield 80 FPS average, Medium yields 62 FPS with a 53 FPS minimum and 71 FPS maximum, High yields 47 FPS average, and Ultra yields 44 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 18 FPS, from Medium to High is 15 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 3 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. Low settings produce 59 FPS average, Medium produces 46 FPS with a 39 FPS minimum and 53 FPS maximum, High produces 34 FPS average, and Ultra produces 33 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, from Medium to High is 12 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 1 FPS.

The pattern is consistent across resolutions: the largest performance penalty comes from moving from Low to Medium, followed by Medium to High, with High to Ultra being a marginal step. This suggests that the Medium preset includes significant visual upgrades that are computationally expensive, while Ultra adds only minor effects over High. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings (65 at 1080p, 53 at 1440p, 39 at 4K) provide a floor for frame pacing, indicating that the combo can maintain playable frame rates at Medium across all resolutions, though 4K Medium is borderline.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals the scaling characteristics of this combo. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 99 at 1080p to 80 at 1440p (a 19% decrease), then to 59 at 4K (a further 26% decrease). The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 40%, which is significant but not catastrophic.

At Medium settings, the drop is steeper. From 77 FPS at 1080p to 62 FPS at 1440p is a 19% decrease, and from 62 FPS to 46 FPS at 4K is a 26% decrease. The total drop is 40%. At High settings, the pattern continues: 58 FPS at 1080p to 47 FPS at 1440p (19% decrease), then to 34 FPS at 4K (28% decrease), for a total drop of 41%.

At Ultra settings, the drop is the most pronounced. From 55 FPS at 1080p to 44 FPS at 1440p is a 20% decrease, and from 44 FPS to 33 FPS at 4K is a 25% decrease. The total drop is 40%.

The consistency of these scaling patterns (approximately 19-20% from 1080p to 1440p, and 25-28% from 1440p to 4K) indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck across all settings. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see smaller FPS drops at higher resolutions, as the GPU workload increases but the CPU workload remains constant. Instead, the FPS drops as resolution increases, which is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios.

The 4K to 1080p ratio at each setting is roughly 1.7x (99/59 at Low, 77/46 at Medium, 58/34 at High, 55/33 at Ultra). This means that moving from 4K to 1080p provides approximately a 70% FPS improvement, which is substantial but not the 4x improvement one might expect from a purely pixel-bound workload. This suggests that while the GPU is the main bottleneck, there are other factors—likely memory bandwidth and CPU overhead—that prevent perfect scaling. The shared memory architecture of the Radeon 8050S likely contributes to this, as the GPU's access to system memory becomes more strained at higher resolutions where larger framebuffers and texture caches are needed.