Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a flight simulation title, and this page reports measured performance for the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile. The dataset contains 12 FPS measurements crossing three resolutions and four settings presets, with the pairing ranking 984th out of 3,714 tested combinations. The data is flagged as measured rather than estimated.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile is a Blackwell 2.0 GPU built for mobile systems on TSMC's 5 nm process. It contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die and connects over PCIe 5.0 x16. The memory subsystem is built around 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU clock runs at a 975 MHz base and a 1,500 MHz boost, while memory operates at 1,750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective speed.

Beyond the memory and clock configuration, the GPU packs 7,680 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is listed at 23.04 TFLOPS, with FP16 also at 23.04 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The GPU has a TDP of 80 W and uses no power connectors, with display outputs marked as portable device dependent.

In aggregate benchmarks, the RTX 5080 Mobile scores 4,952 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 166,986 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 169,754 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its Passmark G3D score is 27,711, and its average benchmark score is 38,349, putting it at the 81st percentile of all GPUs. The closest rival scores in the GPU database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 at 38,299 with a 0.1% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile at 38,135 with a 0.6% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38,691 with a -0.9% delta, and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at 38,706 with a -0.9% delta.

In this game, the GPU's characteristics are visible in the 4K results. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 54 fps, High averages 56 fps, Medium averages 75 fps, and Low averages 96 fps. The High and Ultra averages are close, while the Medium to High step shows a much larger frame-rate drop. The 16 GB frame buffer and 896.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide ample headroom for the measured settings, and the behavior across presets is consistent with raw pixel throughput becoming the dominant factor as resolution and settings increase.

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

The measured FPS values decline monotonically as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average is 162 fps at 1080p, 131 fps at 1440p, and 96 fps at 4K. At Medium settings, the average is 126 fps at 1080p, 102 fps at 1440p, and 75 fps at 4K. High settings produce 95 fps at 1080p, 76 fps at 1440p, and 56 fps at 4K. Ultra settings produce 90 fps at 1080p, 73 fps at 1440p, and 54 fps at 4K.

The pattern is consistent across every settings tier: each increase in resolution lowers the average FPS. This is the expected behavior when the GPU is the component doing the heavier scaling work, because higher resolutions require the GPU to fill more pixels. At 1080p Low, the CPU can help push the frame rate to 162 fps, the highest average in the measured set. At 4K Ultra, the same CPU and GPU combination falls to 54 fps, showing the GPU's workload grows substantially with pixel count.

The Medium preset also includes min and max FPS values that illustrate the same trend. At 1080p Medium, the averages sit at 126 fps with a minimum of 107 fps and a maximum of 145 fps. At 1440p Medium, the average is 102 fps with a minimum of 86 fps and a maximum of 117 fps. At 4K Medium, the average is 75 fps with a minimum of 64 fps and a maximum of 86 fps. The frame-rate floor drops from 107 to 86 to 64 as resolution climbs, reinforcing that higher resolutions compress the entire FPS range downward. The limiting component at higher resolutions is the GPU, while the CPU's influence appears most clearly in the high average at 1080p Low.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Among the four presets measured, Medium provides the most balanced experience in this dataset. It is the only preset with min and max FPS values recorded at all three resolutions, and those values are useful for gauging consistency. At 1920x1080, Medium averages 126 fps with a 107 fps minimum. At 2560x1440, Medium averages 102 fps with an 86 fps minimum. At 3840x2160, Medium averages 75 fps with a 64 fps minimum.

The 4K Medium minimum of 64 fps is higher than the 4K High average of 56 fps and the 4K Ultra average of 54 fps. That means the Medium preset offers a floor that is above the average results of the two higher visual presets at the same resolution. At 1440p, Medium's 86 fps minimum is also higher than the High average of 76 fps and the Ultra average of 73 fps. At 1080p, Medium's 107 fps minimum is well above the High average of 95 fps and Ultra average of 90 fps.

Low settings produce the highest averages: 162 fps at 1080p, 131 fps at 1440p, and 96 fps at 4K. However, Low does not include min/max values in the measured rows, so consistency cannot be assessed directly from the data. Ultra settings produce the lowest averages among the four presets: 90 fps at 1080p, 73 fps at 1440p, and 54 fps at 4K. Based on the measured rows, Medium is the recommended preset for users who want both a high frame rate and a listed FPS floor that remains above the High and Ultra averages at each resolution.

FAQ

Q: What average FPS does this combo produce at 4K Ultra in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The average is 54 fps. The 4K High preset averages 56 fps, medium averages 75 fps, and low averages 96 fps.

Q: What are the min and max FPS at 1440p Medium?

A: The average is 102 fps, the minimum is 86 fps, and the maximum is 117 fps.

Q: How do 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra compare?

A: At 1080p Low, the average is 162 fps. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 90 fps.

Q: What is the combo's rank among tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 984th out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What are the CPU and GPU core configurations?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H has 16 cores and 22 threads. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile has 7,680 shading units, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have?

A: The GPU has 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile combination ranks 984th out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a measured result rather than an estimate, and it places the pairing in the upper portion of the field, though not at the very top.

The component-level percentiles provide additional context. The GPU sits at the 81st percentile of all GPUs, with an aggregate benchmark score of 38,349. The CPU sits at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an aggregate benchmark score of 35,670. The in-game rank of 984 of 3,714 is therefore paired with two components that each score above the 80th percentile in their respective databases, illustrating that aggregate component scores do not map directly to a game-specific outcome.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate score are the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 at 35,719 with a -0.1% delta, the Intel Core 7 250H at 35,728 with a -0.2% delta, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 at 35,802 with a -0.4% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X at 35,909 with a -0.7% delta. The GPU's nearest rivals in aggregate score are the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 at 38,299 with a 0.1% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile at 38,135 with a 0.6% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38,691 with a -0.9% delta, and the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at 38,706 with a -0.9% delta. These rival comparisons are based on aggregate benchmark averages, while the in-game rank reflects the actual measured FPS behavior in this specific flight simulator.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is a Meteor Lake mobile processor from Intel's Core Ultra Series 1. It has 16 cores and 22 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The CPU carries a 45 W TDP and is built on Intel's 7 nm process. Its cache configuration includes 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and the CPU also contains Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 128 execution units.

In CPU benchmarks, the Core Ultra 9 185H scores 17,984.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1,810.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core. Geekbench results are 11,657 multicore and 1,794 single-core. Passmark results include 29,376 multithread and 3,697 single-thread scores. The aggregate CPU benchmark score is 35,670, placing it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs.

For this game, the CPU's relevance is most visible when the GPU load is lower. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 162 fps, the highest average in the measured dataset. That result relies on strong single-thread and multi-thread CPU performance to keep the frame rate high while the GPU has comparatively less pixel work to do. The CPU's single-core scores of 1,810.5 in Cinebench R23 and 1,794 in Geekbench are consistent with a processor capable of maintaining high frame rates in a simulation workload. The 16-core, 22-thread configuration and 24 MB of shared L3 cache also provide substantial multi-thread resources for background simulation tasks, though the measured FPS rows do not separate those tasks from the main rendering path.

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

The full measured FPS table for this combo is shown below.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 162 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 126 | 107 | 145 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 95 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 90 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 131 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 102 | 86 | 117 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 76 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 73 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 96 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 75 | 64 | 86 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 56 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 54 | — | — |

At 1080p, Low produces 162 fps, Medium produces 126 fps with a 107 fps floor, High produces 95 fps, and Ultra produces 90 fps. At 1440p, Low produces 131 fps, Medium produces 102 fps with an 86 fps floor, High produces 76 fps, and Ultra produces 73 fps. At 4K, Low produces 96 fps, Medium produces 75 fps with a 64 fps floor, High produces 56 fps, and Ultra produces 54 fps.

The only measured rows with min and max values are the Medium presets. At 1080p Medium, the range is 107 to 145 fps. At 1440p Medium, the range is 86 to 117 fps. At 4K Medium, the range is 64 to 86 fps. These values provide the clearest consistency picture in the dataset: the Medium preset keeps a playable floor even at 4K, while the High and Ultra rows at 4K average 56 and 54 fps without listed minimums. The measured FPS breakdown therefore shows a steady loss of performance as both resolution and settings increase, with Medium at each resolution serving as the strongest middle point.