Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H compare to its closest rivals in overall CPU performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 185H posts an average benchmark score of 35,670, placing it essentially neck-and-neck with the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 (35,719, -0.1% delta) and the Intel Core 7 250H (35,728, -0.2% delta). It trails slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X (35,909, -0.7% delta), but these differences are within a margin that suggests near-identical general processing capability.

Q: What is the GPU’s standing relative to other graphics cards in the benchmark database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 achieves an average benchmark score of 60,347, which places it in the 88th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro A60, scores 60,326 (0% delta), while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% ahead at 61,896. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 trails by 2.9% at 58,657.

Q: What frame rates can this combo achieve at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the measured average FPS ranges from 55 (Ultra settings) to 98 (Low settings). Medium settings deliver 77 FPS average with a minimum of 65 and maximum of 88, while High settings produce 58 FPS average. The data shows playable frame rates even at the highest preset, though 60 FPS is only marginally exceeded at Medium.

Q: How does the CPU’s single-thread performance compare to its multi-thread performance?

A: In Cinebench R23, the Core Ultra 9 185H scores 1,810.5 single-core and 17,984.5 multi-core, showing a roughly 10x scaling factor. The Geekbench results show 1,794 single-core and 11,657 multi-core. The Passmark single-thread score is 3,697, while multithread reaches 29,376, indicating strong scalability across its 16 cores and 22 threads.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks 614th out of 2,996 tested combos for this game, placing it in the top 20.5% of all tested configurations. This rank reflects the balance between the Core Ultra 9 185H and the RTX 4090 in this flight simulator workload.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this configuration at rank 614 out of 2,996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That position is notable because the combo sits in the top fifth of all tested setups, yet it is not near the absolute top, indicating that even with a flagship GPU and a high-end mobile CPU, the game presents significant performance challenges.

This rank is informative when compared with the individual component percentiles. The RTX 4090 sits in the 88th percentile among all GPUs, and the Core Ultra 9 185H sits in the 85th percentile among all CPUs. The combo rank of 614/2996 (79.5th percentile) is lower than both component percentiles, suggesting that Microsoft Flight Simulator is not fully utilizing the strengths of either component, or that the game’s engine creates a bottleneck not visible in synthetic benchmarks.

The measured FPS data reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 166 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 55 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution is consistent but steep: at 1440p, Low yields 133 FPS while Ultra yields 74 FPS, a 44.6% reduction. At 4K, the drop from Low (98 FPS) to Ultra (55 FPS) is 43.9%. This consistent scaling pattern indicates the game is heavily dependent on both resolution and settings, with the GPU becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases.

The rank of 614 also suggests that many other combinations—likely those with desktop-class CPUs or newer architectures—manage to extract more performance from similar or even lesser GPUs. The Core Ultra 9 185H, despite its 16 cores and 22 threads, may not provide the single-thread headroom that this flight simulator rewards, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,810.5, which is modest relative to its multi-core capability.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the dominant component in this combo, and its specifications explain the measured FPS patterns. The GPU features 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed. The base clock is 2235 MHz with a boost of 2520 MHz, and the chip (AD102) contains 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role is critical at higher resolutions. The data shows that at 4K, the average FPS drops from 98 (Low) to 58 (High) to 55 (Ultra), with Medium at 77. This steep decline indicates that the game’s rendering workload at 4K is enormous, and even the RTX 4090—which has a pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s—cannot maintain high frame rates at maximum settings.

The GPU’s 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 82.58 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1) are substantial, but the measured results suggest that memory bandwidth and fill rate are the limiting factors at 4K Ultra. The 1.01 TB/s bandwidth is among the highest available, yet the game still only achieves 55 FPS. At 1440p, the GPU has more headroom, with Ultra delivering 74 FPS and Medium reaching 104 FPS. At 1080p, the RTX 4090 is clearly not the bottleneck, as Low settings produce 166 FPS and even Ultra maintains 92 FPS.

The GPU’s 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores are relevant for DirectX 12 Ultimate support, but the measured FPS data does not isolate ray tracing effects. The Passmark DirectX 12 score of 150 and DirectX 11 score of 326 indicate that the GPU’s raw API performance is strong, but the game’s engine appears to favor consistent rasterization throughput over advanced features in these measurements.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 98 FPS average
• Medium: 77 FPS average, 65 FPS minimum, 88 FPS maximum
• High: 58 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

The 4K results show that Medium is the sweet spot for maintaining 60+ FPS, with 77 FPS average. High dips to 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many users target. Ultra is only marginally worse than High (55 vs 58), suggesting diminishing returns from High to Ultra. Low settings double the Ultra frame rate, indicating that the game is heavily settings-dependent at 4K.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 133 FPS average
• Medium: 104 FPS average, 88 FPS minimum, 119 FPS maximum
• High: 78 FPS average
• Ultra: 74 FPS average

At 1440p, the combo delivers smooth performance across all settings. Low reaches 133 FPS, which is well beyond typical display refresh rates. Medium maintains 104 FPS with a minimum of 88, ensuring no noticeable stutter. High and Ultra are closer together (78 vs 74), indicating that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor but still provides playable frame rates.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 166 FPS average
• Medium: 129 FPS average, 109 FPS minimum, 148 FPS maximum
• High: 97 FPS average
• Ultra: 92 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo is clearly CPU-bound at lower settings, with Low achieving 166 FPS. Medium drops to 129 FPS, but the minimum of 109 ensures consistent gameplay. High and Ultra are nearly identical (97 vs 92), reinforcing the pattern seen at 1440p where the gap between High and Ultra narrows as resolution decreases.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the gap between Low and Medium is significant (roughly 30-40 FPS at each resolution), while the gap between High and Ultra is small (3-5 FPS at each resolution). This suggests that the Ultra preset offers minimal visual benefit over High for a small performance cost, while Medium provides a substantial frame rate increase over High.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a 16-core, 22-thread processor based on the Meteor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 7 nm process. Its base clock is 3.90 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and it has a 45 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is most evident at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 166 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at that setting. However, the single-thread performance is more telling: Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1,810.5, and Geekbench single-core is 1,794. These scores indicate that the CPU is capable but not exceptional in single-threaded workloads, which flight simulators often depend on for simulation logic and physics.

The multi-thread capabilities are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 17,984.5, and Passmark multithread scores 29,376. The CPU’s 16 cores and 22 threads provide ample parallel processing, but the game’s engine may not fully utilize this parallelism. The measured FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows that the CPU’s influence diminishes as resolution increases—at 1080p Ultra (92 FPS) versus 4K Ultra (55 FPS), the GPU becomes the primary limiter.

The CPU’s integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 128EU) are not relevant for this discrete GPU configuration, but the processor’s PCIe Gen 5 support with 8 lanes (CPU only) ensures adequate bandwidth to the RTX 4090. The CPU’s 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it is a solid performer, and its nearest rivals—all within 0.7% in average benchmark score—indicate that this is a well-balanced part for its class.

For this game, the data suggests that the CPU is sufficient for 60+ FPS at 1440p and below, but at 4K Ultra, the GPU’s limitations become the dominant factor. The CPU’s boost clock of 5.10 GHz helps in single-threaded scenarios, but the base clock of 3.90 GHz may cause occasional dips in complex flight scenarios with heavy AI traffic.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and frame rate preference.

For 4K (3840x2160): Choose Medium settings. The measured 77 FPS average with a 65 FPS minimum provides a smooth experience while maintaining visual quality. High settings drop to 58 FPS, which may introduce noticeable stutter on 60 Hz displays. Ultra is not recommended, as it only achieves 55 FPS—barely different from High but with additional visual overhead.

For 1440p (2560x1440): High settings offer the best balance, delivering 78 FPS average. Medium provides 104 FPS for those with high refresh rate displays, but the visual improvement from Medium to High is likely worth the 26 FPS cost. Ultra at 74 FPS is viable if maximum fidelity is desired, but the performance difference from High is minimal (4 FPS), suggesting High is the better choice.

For 1080p (1920x1080): High settings at 97 FPS are the clear recommendation. Medium reaches 129 FPS for competitive or high refresh rate play, but the jump to High adds significant visual detail for a 32 FPS reduction. Ultra at 92 FPS is also acceptable, but the 5 FPS difference from High does not justify the extra GPU load.

Across all resolutions, the data shows that the Medium preset is the safest choice for maintaining 60+ FPS, while High provides the best visual-to-performance ratio for users with 60 Hz displays. Low settings should only be used for maximum frame rate (166 FPS at 1080p) or when playing at 4K with a high refresh rate monitor.

The measured minimum FPS values (65 at 4K Medium, 88 at 1440p Medium, 109 at 1080p Medium) indicate that Medium settings provide the most consistent frame pacing, avoiding the dips that could occur at High or Ultra. For users prioritizing smoothness over visuals, Medium is the data-supported recommendation. For those with adaptive sync displays, High at 1440p (78 FPS) is a strong choice that balances fidelity and performance.