Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding flight simulation title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily. This analysis examines the performance of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 570, based on measured benchmark data. The data reveals a configuration where the graphics card is the primary limiting factor, resulting in low frame rates across all tested resolutions and settings. The following sections break down the measured performance, the roles of each component, and how this combination ranks against other tested systems.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination achieves at 1920x1080?

A: The highest average FPS recorded for this combo at 1920x1080 is 48 FPS, which is achieved with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-core performance compare to its closest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, its nearest rival with a score of 83807.

Q: What is the performance difference between the RX 570 and the RX 470?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 570 has an average benchmark score of 28766, which is 0.8% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 470's score of 28996, meaning the RX 570 is slightly slower in this comparison.

Q: Is the frame rate at 4K Ultra playable?

A: No, the measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is only 16 FPS, which is well below the threshold for smooth, playable performance in a flight simulator.

Q: What is the performance drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low?

A: The average FPS drops from 48 FPS at 1920x1080 Low to 29 FPS at 3840x2160 Low, representing a significant 19 FPS decrease when moving to the higher resolution.

Q: Does the GPU have more or less VRAM than is typically needed for high-resolution textures?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is a limited capacity for modern high-resolution textures, likely contributing to the low frame rates observed at higher settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is the decisive bottleneck in this system for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its performance, as measured in this configuration, is insufficient to maintain fluid frame rates. The GPU is based on the Polaris 20 chip with a GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process. It features 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. Its base clock is 1168 MHz and it boosts to 1244 MHz.

The card is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a critical limitation. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for using large amounts of texture data, and the 4 GB frame buffer is likely to be exceeded at higher resolutions and detail settings. When VRAM is full, the system must swap data, which can cause severe stutters and frame rate drops, as reflected in the low average FPS scores.

The GPU's raw compute capabilities are also a factor. It offers an FP32 performance of 5.095 TFLOPS. For a simulation that requires complex rendering of terrain, weather, and aircraft models, this level of compute power is on the lower end for modern standards. The benchmark results show the GPU's overall performance places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 28766. This score is nearly identical to its closest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996), indicating it sits in a specific performance tier that is not well-suited for the high demands of this game at higher settings. The data indicates that the GPU's capabilities are the primary constraint on the frame rates in this pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. This scaling behavior is a strong indicator of the GPU being the limiting component. At the Low settings preset, the average FPS falls from 48 at 1080p to 39 at 1440p, and further down to 29 at 4K. This is a steep drop, with the 4K performance being roughly 40% lower than at 1080p.

The scaling is consistent across all settings presets. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 38 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p and finally to 22 at 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 28, 23, and 17 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively. The Ultra preset follows the same trend, with 27, 22, and 16 FPS. The fact that the frame rate drops proportionally with the number of pixels rendered indicates that the GPU is working at its limit and cannot maintain the same level of performance as the resolution increases.

This behavior is classic for a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not scale as dramatically with resolution. Instead, the data shows that every increase in pixel count directly translates to a significant loss in FPS. This confirms that the AMD Radeon RX 570 is the limiting factor, and its performance ceiling is what prevents this system from achieving higher frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured performance data, the only way to achieve a playable experience with this hardware is to use the Low settings preset. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 48 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches a standard 60 FPS target. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to 38 FPS average, which is noticeably less smooth but may be acceptable for some users in a non-competitive flight simulator.

All other settings and resolution combinations result in average frame rates below 30 FPS. The data suggests that the Ultra and High presets are not viable, as even at 1080p they produce an average of 27 and 28 FPS, respectively. These frame rates would likely feel sluggish and unresponsive. At 1440p and 4K, the performance is even worse, with all settings producing averages between 16 and 39 FPS.

Therefore, the "best" experience, based on the measured rows, is to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The recommendation is to play at 1920x1080 with the Low preset to achieve an average of 48 FPS. If a user prefers higher visual quality, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a compromise, but it is important to note the drop to 38 FPS. For users with a 1440p or 4K monitor, the data indicates that this GPU cannot handle the resolution effectively, even on Low settings, resulting in 39 FPS and 29 FPS averages, which are less than ideal.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combination provides a comprehensive look at its performance envelope. The data is organized by resolution and settings preset.

At 1920x1080, the performance is as follows:

• Low: Average FPS of 48.
• Medium: Average FPS of 38, with a minimum of 32 and a maximum of 43.
• High: Average FPS of 28.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 27.

Moving up to 2560x1440, the performance decreases significantly:

• Low: Average FPS of 39.
• Medium: Average FPS of 30, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35.
• High: Average FPS of 23.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 22.

At the highest resolution, 3840x2160, the performance is largely unplayable:

• Low: Average FPS of 29.
• Medium: Average FPS of 22, with a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 26.
• High: Average FPS of 17.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 16.

The data reveals that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 21 FPS (48 vs 27). At 4K, the difference is only 13 FPS (29 vs 16). This further demonstrates that the GPU is the limiting factor; at 4K, even the lowest settings struggle to push frames, leaving very little headroom for increased visual complexity. The minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings show that frame times can be inconsistent, which could lead to noticeable stutters in gameplay.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a high-end desktop processor, and its specifications suggest it is more than capable of feeding the GPU with data. It is a 24-core, 24-thread processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It has a substantial 36 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU performs exceptionally well. Its multi-core scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a Passmark multithread score of 60860. Its single-core performance is also top-tier, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303. These results place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. This score is 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX and 1.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9135.

The CPU's role in gaming is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for being CPU-intensive due to its complex simulation of flight dynamics and world generation, a powerful CPU is beneficial. The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this system. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would be low even at 1080p and would not improve significantly with lower settings. However, the measured FPS scales directly with resolution and settings, which is the signature of a GPU bottleneck. Therefore, while the CPU is a powerful component, its capabilities are largely untapped in this configuration because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to keep up.

How This Combo Ranks

In the overall ranking of tested hardware combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks very low. The combo has a rank of 2870 out of 2996 total tested combos. This places it in the bottom 5% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the low frame rates observed in the measured data.

This low rank is a direct result of the GPU's performance. While the CPU is a top-tier component, the GPU's age and limited capabilities severely hinder the overall gaming performance. The benchmark data shows that the GPU is a significant bottleneck, preventing the system from achieving frame rates that would be considered playable for a modern title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The combination of a very powerful CPU with a much weaker GPU creates an imbalanced system where the user is paying for CPU performance that they cannot fully utilize in this specific game.

The rank of 2870 out of 2996 is a clear indicator that this is not a recommended configuration for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data suggests that the GPU must be upgraded to a significantly more powerful model to take advantage of the CPU's potential and achieve a satisfactory gaming experience. This rank serves as a quantitative summary of the performance analysis, confirming that the GPU is the primary factor holding back this system.