Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache and operates with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU’s role is substantial, as the simulation engine is known to stress processor throughput for physics, AI, and scenery generation. The benchmark data shows the CPU’s high multi-threaded capability, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35589 and a single-core score of 2204, indicating strong headroom for the game’s often single-thread-bound rendering thread. The processor’s 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs reinforces its position as a high-end part, though its performance in this specific game is heavily constrained by the integrated GPU it is paired with.

The CPU’s 24 threads are all available for the game’s workloads, and the high L3 cache helps with the large data sets typical of flight simulators, which stream terrain and aircraft models. However, the measured FPS results in this pairing are low, which suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. The data shows that as resolution increases, FPS drops further, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. For instance, at 1080p Low the average FPS is 34, while at 4K Low it falls to 20. This scaling pattern indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU more frames than the integrated graphics can render, but the overall performance ceiling is set by the graphics solution. The CPU’s 5.40 GHz boost clock helps ensure that it does not bottleneck at lower resolutions, but the GPU’s low throughput prevents the system from achieving playable frame rates even in the best case measured.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 34, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has an average benchmark score of 67469, which is 0.3% lower than the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (67673) and 0.5% lower than the AMD EPYC 4484PX (67822). It is 0.7% higher than the Intel Xeon 6515P (67006).

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 28 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 15 FPS. This is a difference of 13 FPS, or roughly 46% lower performance on Ultra.

Q: Does the integrated GPU outperform its closest competitor in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000). It is 0.5% lower than the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049).

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 3703 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom percentile of systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator performance.

Q: At what resolution and settings does the game become the most demanding in terms of FPS loss?

A: The most demanding measured configuration is 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which yields an average of 11 FPS. This is the lowest FPS recorded in the entire dataset.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the only configuration that approaches a playable experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 34 FPS. This is the highest average FPS in the dataset, but it is still below the 60 FPS threshold typically desired for smooth simulation. At this resolution, Medium settings drop the average to 27 FPS, and High settings further reduce it to 20 FPS. Ultra at 1080p yields 19 FPS, which is nearly identical to the High preset, suggesting diminishing returns in visual quality for the performance cost.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, the data indicates that Low settings at 1080p are the only viable option, as they provide a 26% improvement over Medium settings (34 vs 27 FPS). If a user insists on higher visual quality, they must accept a significant performance penalty. For instance, moving from Low to High at 1080p reduces FPS by 41% (from 34 to 20). At higher resolutions, the performance becomes prohibitive. At 1440p, even Low settings only manage 28 FPS, and at 4K, the best case is 20 FPS on Low. Therefore, the benchmark results suggest that this combo is only suitable for low-detail, 1080p flight simulation, and users should avoid Ultra presets entirely, as they consistently produce the lowest FPS at every resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD Radeon 760M ranks 3703 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 11th percentile of all configurations, indicating that it is one of the least capable setups for this game. The CPU itself is a high performer, ranking in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, but the GPU is the limiting factor, ranking in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The disparity between these two components is stark: the CPU is a top-tier mobile processor, while the GPU is an entry-level integrated solution.

This ranking implies that the system is severely unbalanced for this workload. The CPU has the raw compute power to handle complex simulation tasks, but the GPU cannot keep up with rendering demands. The data shows that the GPU’s average benchmark score of 6019 is only slightly above the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000), which are both older or lower-tier discrete parts. In contrast, the CPU’s average score of 67469 is competitive with workstation-class Xeon and EPYC processors. This mismatch means that any upgrade to the GPU would drastically improve the combo’s rank, while the CPU is unlikely to be the bottleneck in any scenario.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which points to the GPU as the primary limiting component. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 34. Moving to 1440p Low reduces the average to 28 FPS, a drop of approximately 18%. At 4K Low, the average falls to 20 FPS, which is a 41% reduction from the 1080p figure. This scaling is consistent with a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput and fill rate capabilities.

The trend is even more pronounced at higher settings. At Medium settings, 1080p yields 27 FPS, 1440p yields 22 FPS (a 19% drop), and 4K yields 16 FPS (a 41% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shading units are saturated at all resolutions, and the CPU is not becoming a limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller FPS difference between 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU would struggle to feed even the lower resolution. Instead, the FPS scales almost linearly with the pixel count, which is a hallmark of GPU-bound performance. The integrated Radeon 760M’s system-shared memory and 512 shading units are simply insufficient for the demands of higher resolutions in this simulation-heavy title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: average 34 FPS
• Medium: average 27 FPS, with a minimum of 23 and maximum of 31 FPS
• High: average 20 FPS
• Ultra: average 19 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: average 28 FPS
• Medium: average 22 FPS, with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 25 FPS
• High: average 16 FPS
• Ultra: average 15 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: average 20 FPS
• Medium: average 16 FPS, with a minimum of 13 and maximum of 18 FPS
• High: average 12 FPS
• Ultra: average 11 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step up in settings or resolution costs a significant number of frames. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 15 FPS (34 vs 19), while at 4K, the gap is only 9 FPS (20 vs 11). This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is so heavily saturated that even reducing settings from Ultra to Low does not provide the same relative performance boost as it does at lower resolutions. The Medium settings rows include minimum and maximum FPS values, which provide a range of variability. At 1080p Medium, the FPS swings between 23 and 31, showing a 26% variance, which is typical for a flight simulator with dynamic scenery loads. At 1440p Medium, the variance is 28% (18 to 25), and at 4K Medium, it is 31% (13 to 18). This increasing variability at higher resolutions further indicates that the GPU is struggling to maintain consistent frame pacing.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, along with 8 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, but its memory is system-shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. This is a critical factor in its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is a title that benefits significantly from high memory bandwidth and capacity. The GPU’s memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means it relies on the CPU’s dual-channel DDR5 memory bus, providing up to 102.4 GB/s on this platform. However, this shared memory access can lead to contention with the CPU, especially in a simulation game that uses large amounts of system memory for terrain and aircraft data.

The measured FPS results show that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck in this system. Its synthetic benchmark scores are low, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400 and a Passmark G3D score of 5310. The GPU’s percentile ranking among all GPUs is 35th, meaning it performs worse than 65% of all graphics cards. This is reflected in the game’s FPS, which never exceeds 34 even at the lowest settings and resolution. The GPU’s 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is simply not enough to handle the rendering load of Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates. The data suggests that the GPU’s 8 ray tracing cores are largely irrelevant here, as the game’s performance is limited by raw rasterization and pixel fill rate, which are constrained by the 16 ROPs and the shared memory architecture. In essence, the Radeon 760M is a capable integrated solution for light productivity and older games, but it is out of its depth in a modern, demanding simulation title like this one.