Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs a 24-core Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX with the integrated AMD Radeon 890M, creating a system where the data reveals an extreme imbalance between processing power and graphics throughput. The measured frames per second across three resolutions and four quality presets tell a consistent story: this is a configuration defined by its GPU limitation, with the CPU operating far below its potential ceiling. The following analysis breaks down the benchmark results, contextualizes the performance against other tested combos, and explores what the numbers imply for users of this specific hardware pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, indicating that the AMD Radeon 890M is the dominant bottleneck at every tested setting. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 50 FPS at 1920x1080 to 40 FPS at 2560x1440, a 20% reduction, and then further to 30 FPS at 3840x2160, another 25% drop. This scaling pattern is classic GPU-bound behavior — as pixel count increases, the render workload expands nearly linearly, and the integrated GPU's throughput collapses under the load.

Moving to Medium settings, the pattern repeats with slightly lower absolute numbers: 39 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are roughly similar, suggesting the same bottleneck persists regardless of the preset. At High settings, the trend continues with 29 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The most telling data point comes from Ultra settings, where the frame rate plummets to 28 FPS at 1080p and 16 FPS at 4K — a 43% loss from the lowest to highest resolution.

The data implies that the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is not the limiting factor in any of these scenarios. If the CPU were struggling, the frame rate would show less sensitivity to resolution changes, as the processor's workload remains relatively constant across pixel counts. Instead, the consistent ~40-50% FPS reduction when moving from 1080p to 4K across all presets points squarely at the Radeon 890M's fill rate and shading capacity as the ceiling. The GPU's pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s simply cannot sustain playable framerates at higher resolutions in this simulation-heavy title.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured performance places this combination at rank 3495 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, putting it in the bottom 6% of all configurations. This is a remarkably low ranking that underscores how poorly matched the integrated GPU is for this particular game's demands. The 890M's percentile ranking against all GPUs is 45, meaning it sits near the middle of the pack for general graphics tasks, but Flight Simulator's specific rendering workload — which combines dense terrain geometry, complex weather systems, and detailed cockpit instrumentation — appears to disproportionately tax its architecture.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context for its position. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 9221 in average benchmark tests, just 0.1% higher than the 890M's 9210, indicating the integrated solution performs at a level comparable to a previous-generation integrated GPU. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and GTX 465 score 9273 and 9294 respectively, placing them 0.7% and 0.9% ahead. These are all discrete desktop GPUs from previous generations, yet the 890M's integrated design manages to stay within 1% of their scores — evidence of the RDNA 3.5 architecture's efficiency, but also a clear signal that this hardware class is not built for high-end flight simulation.

The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 94th percentile against all processors, with an average benchmark score of 67469. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 at 67673 (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 4484PX at 67822 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX at 67868 (0.6% higher). This places the Core Ultra 9 275HX in serious workstation-class territory, yet the combo's overall rank is dragged down entirely by the GPU's 45th percentile standing. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with even a modest discrete GPU would yield dramatically better results in Flight Simulator.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX brings substantial compute resources to this pairing, featuring 24 cores and 24 threads based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture. Its base clock of 2.70 GHz can boost up to 5.40 GHz, and the processor maintains a 55 W TDP despite its mobile form factor. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared across all cores, with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, providing ample data locality for the simulation's physics and AI calculations.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates exceptional multi-threaded capability. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35589 and Geekbench multi-core score of 20795 position it well above typical mobile processors. The PassMark multi-thread score of 55759 and floating-point math score of 191186 further confirm its strength in parallel workloads. Single-thread performance is equally robust, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2204 and PassMark single-thread score of 4713.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that this CPU horsepower is largely untapped in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 50 FPS, which falls far short of what the CPU could theoretically support if paired with a more capable GPU. The game's engine, released in 2020, does utilize multiple cores for terrain streaming and AI traffic, but the 890M's rendering bottleneck prevents the CPU from ever becoming the limiting factor. The 24-core design is overkill for this pairing; even a fraction of its cores would be sufficient to feed the integrated GPU's modest output.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s on a dual-channel DDR5 bus is shared with the GPU, since the Radeon 890M uses system memory. This shared bandwidth arrangement further constrains performance, as both the CPU and GPU compete for the same memory resources. In Flight Simulator, which streams large terrain and photogrammetry datasets, this contention likely contributes to the lower-than-expected frame rates even at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset provides a clear picture of performance across all configurations. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 50 FPS on Low settings, 39 FPS on Medium, 29 FPS on High, and 28 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 44 FPS, indicating some frame-time variance but generally stable performance. The jump from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, while the transition from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS, and High to Ultra only 1 FPS — a pattern suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not fully taxing the GPU at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the numbers scale down predictably: 40 FPS on Low, 31 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 26 and maximum of 36), 23 FPS on High, and 22 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p to 1440p drop is most pronounced at Low settings, losing 10 FPS (20%), while the higher presets lose 6-8 FPS each. This resolution step increases pixel count by 78%, and the GPU's frame rate drops accordingly, reinforcing the GPU-bound nature of the workload.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal: 30 FPS on Low, 23 FPS on Medium (minimum 20, maximum 26), 17 FPS on High, and 16 FPS on Ultra. The 4K resolution is 4 times the pixel count of 1080p, and the FPS drops reflect this massive increase in render workload. The Low preset manages to stay above 30 FPS, but just barely, and the Ultra setting falls to 16 FPS, which is effectively unplayable for a flight simulator requiring smooth camera movements and responsive controls.

The only settings with reported minimum and maximum values are Medium at all three resolutions. At 1080p, the range is 33-44 FPS; at 1440p, it narrows to 26-36 FPS; and at 4K, it tightens further to 20-26 FPS. This narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that as the GPU becomes more saturated, frame times become more consistent — the GPU is fully utilized and cannot burst above its average output.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is a remarkable boost ratio for an IGP. The GPU features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical FP32 performance is 5.939 TFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s.

The memory configuration is entirely system-dependent, using shared system memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning the GPU draws from the same DDR5 pool as the CPU. This design choice limits memory bandwidth to whatever the system provides, and with the Core Ultra 9 275HX's dual-channel configuration, the GPU has access to 102.4 GB/s — shared with the CPU's workloads.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 890M scores 8076 in PassMark G3D, 37254 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 40808 in Geekbench Vulkan. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 590, which is low but expected for an integrated part. The GPU's 45th percentile ranking against all GPUs places it below the median, and its nearest rivals in average benchmark scores are all previous-generation integrated or low-end discrete parts.

The passMark DirectX scores are revealing: DirectX 9 scores 97, DirectX 10 scores 33, DirectX 11 scores 73, and DirectX 12 scores 37. These inconsistent scores suggest that the GPU's drivers or hardware excel at older APIs but struggle with modern workloads. Microsoft Flight Simulator uses DirectX 12, and the low DX12 score of 37 aligns with the measured FPS results, confirming that the GPU's contemporary API performance is its weakest area.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal balance between visual quality and playability depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 50 FPS, which is smooth and responsive for a flight simulator. Medium provides 39 FPS, which is still playable but with noticeable stutter during complex scenes. High and Ultra both hover around 28-29 FPS, which is borderline for a game requiring precise control inputs.

For 2560x1440, the Low preset at 40 FPS is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. Medium drops to 31 FPS, which may be acceptable for less demanding flight phases, but High at 23 FPS and Ultra at 22 FPS are too choppy for reliable use. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low or Medium settings, accepting reduced visual fidelity.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset at 30 FPS is the only option that achieves a playable frame rate, and it barely does so. Medium at 23 FPS, High at 17 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS are all below the threshold for a smooth simulation experience. The 4K resolution is not recommended for this GPU pairing unless the user prioritizes visual detail over responsiveness.

The most sensible recommendation across all resolutions is the Low preset, as it consistently yields the highest FPS with the largest margin of error. The Medium preset offers a significant visual upgrade for a 20-25% FPS penalty, which may be worth it for users who prioritize scenery detail over ultra-smooth frame rates. High and Ultra provide diminishing returns — the FPS cost from Medium to High is substantial, but the visual improvement in Flight Simulator's largely static scenes may be less noticeable than in fast-paced action games.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this CPU/GPU combo?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with the Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 50, while 2560x1440 Low achieves 40 FPS. The 3840x2160 resolution only reaches 30 FPS at Low settings, making it the least viable option.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 3495 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU's 45th percentile standing, despite the CPU's 94th percentile performance.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck at 3840x2160. The frame rate drops from 30 FPS at Low to 16 FPS at Ultra, a 47% reduction, while the CPU's workload remains relatively constant across resolutions. The Radeon 890M's pixel rate and shading units are insufficient for 4K rendering.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 50 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 28 FPS — a 22 FPS difference. The Medium preset sits at 39 FPS, and High at 29 FPS, showing that most of the performance loss occurs between Low and Medium.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX too powerful for this GPU?

A: The data strongly suggests yes. The CPU ranks in the 94th percentile with an average benchmark score of 67469, yet the system's overall performance is capped by the GPU. The CPU's multi-core score of 35589 in Cinebench R23 indicates it could handle far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable graphics solution.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset?

A: The Medium preset has the only recorded minimum FPS values in the dataset. At 1920x1080, the minimum is 33 FPS; at 2560x1440, it drops to 26 FPS; and at 3840x2160, it falls to 20 FPS. These minimums indicate worst-case frame times during complex scenes.