Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 reveals a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions. The benchmark results show a clear and consistent pattern: frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution, and the gap between the Low and Ultra presets widens dramatically as pixel count increases. This combination sits in the 614th rank out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the top 21% of all system configurations for this specific simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is stark and tells a definitive story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the system achieves 166 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops the frame rate to 133 FPS, a 20% reduction. Pushing further to 3840x2160 at Low yields 98 FPS, which is another 26% decrease from the 1440p result. This scaling pattern indicates that even at 4K with minimal graphical load, the GPU is still the primary limiting factor, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed the frame pipeline.

The scaling becomes even more pronounced when examining the High preset. At 1080p High, the average is 97 FPS. At 1440p High, it falls to 78 FPS, a 19.6% drop. At 4K High, the system manages only 58 FPS, a further 25.6% decline. This consistent 20-26% reduction per resolution step up is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload is largely independent of pixel count. The data shows no such flatlining; instead, the frame rate drops proportionally with the increase in rendering workload.

The Ultra preset amplifies this effect. The system achieves 92 FPS at 1080p Ultra, which is still a playable frame rate. However, at 1440p Ultra, the average drops to 74 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it collapses to 55 FPS. The delta between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra is a 40.2% reduction in average frame rate. This is a massive performance hit that underscores the sheer rendering demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator's highest settings at 4K resolution. The data clearly shows that the RTX 4090, despite being a top-tier mobile GPU, is the limiting component in this configuration at all tested resolutions and settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in this system is a mobile part based on the AD102 chip and Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process. Its specifications are substantial: 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, paired with 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus. The memory bandwidth is listed at 1.01 TB/s, which is critical for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams vast amounts of terrain and photogrammetry data. The GPU's boost clock is rated at 2520 MHz, and its benchmark scores reflect its high-end positioning, with a Passmark G3D score of 38194 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 9223.

The GPU's role in these results is best understood by comparing its average benchmark score to its nearest rivals. The RTX 4090's average benchmark score is 60347, which places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Interestingly, its nearest rivals in the database are not other high-end gaming cards but rather professional and workstation parts. The Intel Arc Pro A60 has a delta of 0%, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is 0.3% faster, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% faster. This data indicates that in synthetic benchmarks, the RTX 4090 is performing on par with these professional cards, but the in-game results tell a different story.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 24 GB VRAM buffer is more than sufficient for even the 4K Ultra preset, so the limitation is not memory capacity but rather raw compute throughput. The 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is significant, yet the game still only averages 55 FPS at 4K Ultra. This suggests that the simulation's complex draw calls and physics calculations are not purely benefiting from raw shader throughput. The GPU's texture rate of 1,290.2 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 443.5 GPixel/s are high, but the game's rendering engine appears to be highly sensitive to the specific architectural strengths of the GPU, and the data shows that even this powerful card struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance of visual fidelity and performance for this system is the Medium preset at 1440p. At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the system averages 104 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS and a maximum of 119 FPS. This provides a smooth and responsive experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold for a flight simulator, where smooth panning and instrument readability are paramount. The 88 FPS minimum ensures that even in dense cityscapes or complex weather scenarios, the frame rate should not dip into uncomfortable territory.

For users who prioritize maximum visual quality, the High preset at 1440p is a viable option, yielding an average of 78 FPS. This is still a playable frame rate, but the lack of a reported minimum FPS suggests that there may be stutters in particularly demanding scenes. At 4K, the choices are more constrained. The High preset at 4K averages 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target but arguably playable for a simulator. However, the Ultra preset at 4K, with an average of 55 FPS, is pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable for a smooth experience. The data suggests that the Low preset at 1080p, with 166 FPS, is only useful for competitive or high-refresh-rate scenarios, which are not the typical use case for this genre.

The Medium preset at 1080p is the sweet spot for high refresh rate displays, averaging 129 FPS with a minimum of 109 FPS. This is a significant improvement over the High preset's 97 FPS average at the same resolution. The data indicates that the jump from Medium to High at 1080p costs 32 FPS (a 24.8% reduction), while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 5 FPS (a 5.2% reduction). This non-linear scaling suggests that the High preset is the most inefficient in terms of performance per frame, while Ultra is a marginal step up from High. Therefore, for a 1080p user, sticking with Medium or High is advisable, with Ultra offering only a small visual gain for a noticeable performance hit.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured frame rates provides a comprehensive view of the system's capabilities across all tested configurations.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 166 FPS. The Medium preset reduces this to 129 FPS, with a minimum of 109 FPS and a maximum of 148 FPS. The High preset averages 97 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 92 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 74 FPS, indicating that the CPU and GPU have enough headroom to handle the extra graphical load at lower pixel counts, though the jump from High to Ultra is minimal.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 133 FPS. The Medium preset averages 104 FPS, with a minimum of 88 FPS and a maximum of 119 FPS. The High preset averages 78 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 74 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent reduction across all presets: Low drops by 33 FPS, Medium by 25 FPS, High by 19 FPS, and Ultra by 18 FPS. This pattern shows that higher settings see a smaller absolute drop, which reinforces the idea that the GPU is becoming the primary limiter as resolution increases.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 98 FPS. The Medium preset averages 77 FPS, with a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS. The High preset averages 58 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 55 FPS. The transition from 1440p to 4K is brutal: Low drops by 35 FPS, Medium by 27 FPS, High by 20 FPS, and Ultra by 19 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra preset's 55 FPS average is just barely above the minimum playable threshold, and the High preset's 58 FPS is not much better. The Medium preset's 77 FPS at 4K, with a 65 FPS minimum, is the most viable 4K option for maintaining a stable frame rate, but even then, it is significantly lower than the 1440p Medium result.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 offers the best balance of performance and visual quality. At Medium settings, the system averages 104 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS, which is smooth and stable. At 4K, even the High preset only averages 58 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for a consistently fluid experience.

Q: How much performance is lost when switching from the Low preset to the Ultra preset?

A: The performance loss varies by resolution. At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 166 FPS to 92 FPS, a 44.6% reduction. At 2560x1440, it drops from 133 FPS to 74 FPS, a 44.4% reduction. At 3840x2160, it drops from 98 FPS to 55 FPS, a 43.9% reduction. The relative penalty is consistent, but the absolute frame rates become much lower at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the RTX 4090's 24 GB of VRAM sufficient for this game at 4K Ultra?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is not limited by memory capacity. The system achieves an average of 55 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is a low frame rate, but the bottleneck is the GPU's compute throughput, not its memory buffer. The 24 GB of GDDR6X memory is more than adequate for the game's highest settings.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX compare to its closest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 67469, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. It is 0.3% slower than the Intel Xeon w5-3525, 0.5% slower than the AMD EPYC 4484PX, and 0.6% slower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX. It is 0.7% faster than the Intel Xeon 6515P. These are all very close margins, indicating the CPU is performing at a high level in synthetic tests.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset, and at which resolution?

A: The minimum FPS of 65 was recorded at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum was 88 FPS, and at 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum was 109 FPS. This shows that the Medium preset is the most stable in terms of frame time consistency across all resolutions.

Q: Is the system capable of running the game on a high refresh rate monitor?

A: Yes, but only at lower resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the system averages 166 FPS, which is above the 144Hz threshold. At 1080p Medium, it averages 129 FPS, which is suitable for a 120Hz display. To maintain a 120+ FPS average, the user must stay at 1080p Medium or below. At 1440p, the Low preset's 133 FPS is the only setting that exceeds 120 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a 36 MB shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35589 and a single-core score of 2204, a Geekbench multi-core score of 20795 and a single-core score of 2458. The CPU's average benchmark score is 67469, which places it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the complex flight model calculations, AI traffic, and physics simulation, which are not heavily dependent on resolution. The data shows that at 1080p, the frame rates are high enough (166 FPS on Low) that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. If it were, we would see the frame rate plateau around a certain value regardless of resolution. Instead, the frame rates drop continuously as resolution increases, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database are all high-end professional or server-class processors: the Intel Xeon w5-3525, AMD EPYC 4484PX, AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX, and Intel Xeon 6515P. The delta percentages are all within 0.7% of the Ultra 9 275HX, showing that it is competitive with these parts in synthetic multi-threaded workloads. For gaming, the single-core performance is often more critical, and with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2204, the 275HX is well-equipped to handle the simulation's primary thread. The data indicates that this CPU provides more than enough processing power to feed the RTX 4090, ensuring that the GPU is always the component that determines the final frame rate in this demanding simulator.