Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers a compelling mobile platform for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its demanding CPU and GPU workloads. This combination ranks 586th out of 2,996 tested combos in this game, placing it within the top 20% of all configurations evaluated. The data reveals a system that can push well past 100 FPS at 1080p on lower presets while maintaining playable frame rates at 4K Ultra, though the performance scaling across resolutions tells a nuanced story about where the bottleneck lies.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile processor based on the Arrow Lake-HX architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boosts to 5.40 GHz, drawing a 55 W TDP. The processor features a 36 MB shared L3 cache, with 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. This configuration positions it as a high-end mobile part, and its benchmark results confirm strong multi-threaded and single-threaded capabilities.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 35,589 in multi-core and 2,204 in single-core tests. The Geekbench results show 20,795 multi-core and 2,458 single-core scores. PassMark multi-thread performance reaches 55,759, with a single-thread score of 4,713. These numbers place the CPU in the 94th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 67,469. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (average score 67,673, delta −0.3%), AMD EPYC 4484PX (67,822, delta −0.5%), AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX (67,868, delta −0.6%), and Intel Xeon 6515P (67,006, delta +0.7%). The performance differences are minimal, all within 0.7%, indicating this mobile chip trades blows with workstation-class desktop processors.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial because the simulation engine must process flight physics, weather systems, and world geometry streaming. The 24 threads provide ample parallel capacity for these workloads, while the 5.40 GHz boost clock helps with the single-threaded aspects that simulation titles often rely on. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 173 FPS average, which suggests the CPU is not the primary limiter at these settings. However, the gap between Low and Medium at 1080p (173 FPS vs. 135 FPS, a 28% drop) hints that the simulation's CPU overhead grows quickly as graphical detail increases, even if the GPU is also being pushed harder.

The L3 cache size of 36 MB is useful for keeping frequently accessed simulation data close to the cores, and the dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides sufficient throughput for texture streaming and asset loading. The processor's 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs reinforces that this is not a weak link in the system, even in a game as CPU-intensive as Flight Simulator.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60+ FPS on Ultra settings?

A: At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 57, which falls just below the 60 FPS mark. At 1440p Ultra, the average rises to 78 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra, it reaches 96 FPS. For a consistent 60+ FPS on Ultra, 1440p is the safest choice.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 67,469 on average, which is within 0.7% of the Intel Xeon 6515P (67,006) and within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon w5-3525 (67,673). It trails the AMD EPYC 4484PX by 0.5% and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX by 0.6%, making these processors effectively equivalent in raw compute.

Q: What FPS can be expected at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average is 135 FPS, with a minimum of 114 FPS and a maximum of 155 FPS. This is the only settings level at 1080p that reports min/max values in the data.

Q: Does the GPU's benchmark percentile align with its in-game performance?

A: The RTX 5090 sits in the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,842. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, scores 79,605 (delta +0.3%). In-game, the GPU delivers 173 FPS at 1080p Low, suggesting strong performance, though the 4K Ultra result of 57 FPS shows the limits of even this flagship part under maximum load.

Q: How much performance is lost when going from Low to Ultra at the same resolution?

A: At 1080p, the drop from Low (173 FPS) to Ultra (96 FPS) represents a 44% reduction. At 1440p, the drop is from 139 FPS to 78 FPS, a 44% reduction as well. At 4K, the drop is from 103 FPS to 57 FPS, a 45% reduction, showing a consistent penalty across resolutions.

Q: What memory configuration does this CPU support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It does not support ECC memory.

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

Examining the FPS scaling across resolutions reveals important insights about whether the CPU or GPU is the limiting factor. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (101 FPS) to 1440p (82 FPS) is an 19% drop, while moving from 1440p to 4K (60 FPS) is a 27% drop. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings is 41%. At Low settings, 1080p delivers 173 FPS, 1440p delivers 139 FPS (a 20% drop), and 4K delivers 103 FPS (a 26% drop from 1440p, 40% total). Medium settings show 135 FPS at 1080p, 109 FPS at 1440p (a 19% drop), and 80 FPS at 4K (a 27% drop from 1440p, 41% total). Ultra settings show 96 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p (a 19% drop), and 57 FPS at 4K (a 27% drop from 1440p, 41% total).

The consistent pattern of roughly 19% drops from 1080p to 1440p and 26-27% drops from 1440p to 4K across all settings suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. The proportional scaling indicates that pixel count is directly impacting performance, which is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see larger FPS drops at lower resolutions where the CPU has to feed more frames per second. Instead, the system achieves 173 FPS at 1080p Low but only 96 FPS at 1080p Ultra, showing that even at the same resolution, increasing GPU load reduces FPS more than CPU limitations would allow.

The fact that 4K Ultra still manages 57 FPS average is notable for a simulation game. This suggests that while the RTX 5090 is heavily taxed at 4K with maximum settings, the CPU is keeping up with the simulation's logic demands. The 24 threads and 5.40 GHz boost clock are adequate for this workload, and the 36 MB L3 cache likely helps with the large data sets Flight Simulator streams. The drop to 57 FPS at 4K Ultra is a typical trade-off for a flight sim pushing maximum fidelity, and the data indicates that users wanting higher frame rates should drop to 1440p Ultra, which still delivers 78 FPS average.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX + RTX 5090 combination ranks 586th out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 19.6% of all configurations, which is a strong showing given the age of the game (released 2020-08-17) and the breadth of hardware tested. The rank of 586 indicates that there are 585 combos that perform better, which likely include desktop CPUs with higher sustained clocks and more powerful cooling solutions, as well as possibly dual-GPU setups or configurations with even newer hardware.

The CPU's 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the GPU's 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs suggest that both components are near the top of their respective categories. However, the combo rank of 586 out of 2,996 (top 20%) is lower than what the individual component percentiles might suggest. This discrepancy could be due to the mobile nature of the CPU, which may throttle under sustained load in a laptop chassis, or the fact that Flight Simulator's simulation engine rewards higher single-thread performance more than multi-thread performance. The CPU's single-thread PassMark score of 4,713 is strong but may be outperformed by desktop parts with higher boost clocks.

The nearest rival combos in the database are not specified, but the gap between this combo's rank and the top 585 suggests that there is meaningful headroom for improvement with other hardware. For instance, a desktop Intel Core Ultra 9 285K paired with an RTX 5090 might rank higher due to better sustained power delivery and cooling. The data shows that this combo is competitive but not at the very top, and users seeking the absolute highest FPS in Flight Simulator might consider desktop alternatives or wait for future hardware revisions.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the best settings depend on the target resolution and desired performance. At 1080p, the Medium preset offers an average of 135 FPS with a minimum of 114 FPS, which provides smooth gameplay with a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. The High preset at 1080p drops to 101 FPS average, still well above 60 FPS, but the jump from Medium to High costs 34 FPS. Ultra at 1080p delivers 96 FPS, which is only 5 FPS lower than High, making the Ultra preset a reasonable choice for those who want maximum visuals at 1080p.

At 1440p, the Medium preset averages 109 FPS with a minimum of 92 FPS, which is excellent for a flight simulator. High drops to 82 FPS, and Ultra to 78 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 4 FPS, so choosing Ultra provides better visuals with negligible performance cost. The Medium setting at 1440p is the sweet spot for high refresh rate monitors, as it stays above 90 FPS even in the minimum.

At 4K, the situation changes. Medium averages 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS, which is playable but close to the 60 FPS threshold. High averages 60 FPS exactly, and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. For 4K gaming, the Medium preset is the recommended choice because it stays above 60 FPS on average and the minimum of 68 FPS suggests it rarely dips below playable levels. High and Ultra at 4K are only for users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate and are willing to accept occasional sub-60 FPS performance.

The data indicates that the Medium preset provides the best balance of performance and visual quality across all three resolutions. It maintains at least 80 FPS average at 4K, 109 FPS at 1440p, and 135 FPS at 1080p. For users with high refresh rate displays at 1080p or 1440p, the Low preset (173 FPS and 139 FPS respectively) offers the highest frame rates, but the visual compromises may not be worth the extra FPS given that Medium already exceeds 100 FPS at both resolutions.

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

At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 173 FPS on Low settings, 135 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 114 and maximum of 155), 101 FPS on High, and 96 FPS on Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with the largest single-step drop occurring between Low and Medium (38 FPS) and the smallest between High and Ultra (5 FPS). This suggests that the Ultra preset at 1080p is not significantly more demanding than High, making it a sensible choice for users with 1080p monitors.

At 2560x1440, Low settings yield an average of 139 FPS, Medium delivers 109 FPS (minimum 92, maximum 125), High reaches 82 FPS, and Ultra drops to 78 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at each setting shows a consistent reduction: Low drops by 34 FPS, Medium by 26 FPS, High by 19 FPS, and Ultra by 18 FPS. The smaller absolute drops at higher settings indicate that the GPU is already heavily loaded, so the additional resolution increase has less impact in terms of absolute FPS.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 103 FPS, Medium averages 80 FPS (minimum 68, maximum 92), High averages 60 FPS, and Ultra averages 57 FPS. The 4K results show the most dramatic scaling, with High and Ultra both falling to near or below the 60 FPS threshold. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 23 FPS, between Medium and High is 20 FPS, and between High and Ultra is just 3 FPS. This indicates that at 4K, the Ultra preset offers minimal visual improvement over High for a significant performance cost, while the Medium preset is the most viable option for maintaining smooth gameplay.

The minimum FPS values are only provided for Medium settings across all resolutions: 114 FPS at 1080p, 92 FPS at 1440p, and 68 FPS at 4K. These minimums suggest that the Medium preset provides consistent performance without severe frame drops, which is important for a flight simulator where smoothness is critical for an immersive experience.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is a flagship mobile GPU based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU has 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, 176 ROPs, 170 ray tracing cores, and 680 tensor cores. Its base clock is 2017 MHz with a boost clock of 2407 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with a pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s.

The RTX 5090's 32 GB of VRAM is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The game can easily exceed 8-12 GB of VRAM at high settings with high-resolution textures, and the 32 GB capacity ensures that there is no VRAM limitation even at 4K Ultra. The 1.79 TB/s bandwidth allows rapid texture streaming as the aircraft moves through the world, reducing stutter and pop-in. The GPU's 92nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,842, confirms its top-tier status.

In PassMark tests, the GPU scores 39,650 in G3D and 26,756 in compute, with lower scores in DirectX tests (226 in DX10, 341 in DX11, 185 in DX12). The Geekbench Vulkan score of 376,728 and OpenCL score of 334,370 indicate strong compute performance. The nearest rival GPUs include the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (score 79,605, delta +0.3%), the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396, delta +0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78,940, delta +1.1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959, delta −1.4%). The RTX 5090 outperforms the Tesla P100 variants and the RX 6850M XT but trails the Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 1.4%.

In-game, the GPU's capabilities are demonstrated by the 4K Low result of 103 FPS, which shows that even at 4K, the GPU can push high frame rates when the simulation load is reduced. The 4K Ultra result of 57 FPS indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at maximum settings, as the CPU is able to feed enough frames at lower settings to reach 103 FPS. The RTX 5090's high boost clock of 2407 MHz and 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 performance provide ample compute for the game's rendering workload, while the 170 RT cores handle any ray-traced effects the game may utilize. The GPU's 575 W TDP suggests it requires substantial cooling, but in a mobile platform, this is expected for a flagship part.