Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT produces a combination that is clearly constrained by the graphics card in Microsoft Flight Simulator, yet the CPU provides enough headroom to deliver playable frame rates at lower presets. The data indicates a system that ranks in the lower percentile of tested configurations, with the 8 GB VRAM of the GPU proving to be a significant limitation at higher resolutions and detail levels.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, which provides substantial single-thread performance that is crucial for flight simulation workloads. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB of L3 cache, which helps maintain high data throughput during complex flight scenarios. This processor supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 20 lanes ensures that the GPU can communicate with the rest of the system without bandwidth bottlenecks.

In terms of raw compute benchmarks, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. These scores place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested, indicating that it is among the top-tier processors available. The PassMark multithread score of 60860 and single-thread score of 4823 further confirm its strong performance. When compared to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus shows a minimal delta of 0.2% against the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83807, and a 1.1% advantage over the AMD EPYC 4584PX, which scores 83090. The data shows that this CPU is not the limiting factor in the Microsoft Flight Simulator benchmark results; its computational headroom far exceeds what the GPU can deliver.

The CPU’s role in this game is primarily to handle the complex simulation logic, including physics calculations, terrain rendering, and AI traffic, which are heavily single-thread dependent. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz is particularly relevant here, as high-frequency single-core performance directly translates to smoother frame pacing in simulation-heavy scenes. The benchmark results across all resolutions and settings show that the CPU is never the bottleneck; instead, the frame rates are dictated by the GPU’s ability to render the graphics. This is evident from the fact that even at the highest settings, the average FPS remains above 30 at 4K, which would not be possible if the CPU were struggling to keep up with the simulation workload.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is an RDNA 1.0 architecture GPU built on a 7 nm process, featuring 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1605 MHz, a game clock of 1755 MHz, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz, delivering a peak FP32 throughput of 9.754 TFLOPS. The GPU is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a critical factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for loading large textures and detailed scenery. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming at medium settings, but it becomes a significant constraint at 4K Ultra, where texture data can exceed the available memory.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reflect its mid-range positioning, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2134 and a PassMark G3D score of 16277. These figures place it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs tested, indicating that it is an average performer by modern standards. When compared to its nearest rivals, the RX 5700 XT shows a 0.1% delta against the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, which scores 16351, and a -0.3% delta against the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, which scores 16408. The data shows that the GPU is the primary constraint in this combination, as its frame rates are consistently lower than what the CPU could theoretically support.

The GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is particularly problematic at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 33, which is barely playable, and the frame rate is likely limited by memory swapping as the GPU attempts to manage textures that exceed its capacity. At 4K High, the average FPS improves to 34, showing that even a single step down in settings does not alleviate the VRAM pressure significantly. The GPU’s clocks and bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p gaming, where it achieves 98 FPS at Low settings, but the memory capacity becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases. This is a clear case where the GPU’s age and memory size prevent it from fully utilizing the CPU’s capabilities in a demanding simulation title.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern across resolutions, which reveals that the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 98 FPS, and this drops to 79 FPS at 1440p Low, a reduction of 19 FPS. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 59 FPS, which is a further drop of 20 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GPU is being progressively more stressed as pixel count increases, while the CPU remains capable of keeping up with the simulation logic.

For Medium settings, the scaling is similar but with lower absolute values. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 77, dropping to 62 at 1440p Medium, and then to 46 at 4K Medium. The min FPS also shows a corresponding decline, from 65 at 1080p to 52 at 1440p and 39 at 4K. This suggests that the GPU is not only losing average performance but also experiencing less consistent frame delivery as resolution increases. The max FPS values follow the same trend, from 88 at 1080p to 71 at 1440p and 52 at 4K.

The High and Ultra settings show even more dramatic drops. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 58, which falls to 46 at 1440p and 34 at 4K. At Ultra settings, the average FPS is 55 at 1080p, 44 at 1440p, and 33 at 4K. The fact that the difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 3 FPS, while the difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 22 FPS, strongly indicates that the GPU’s rendering capabilities, particularly its VRAM and fill rate, are the limiting factor. The CPU’s performance is clearly sufficient, as even at 4K Ultra, the system does not drop below 30 FPS, which reflects the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus’s ability to maintain the simulation loop without stutter.

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

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 98 FPS on Low settings, which is the highest frame rate measured in the entire dataset. The Medium preset yields an average of 77 FPS, with a minimum of 65 and a maximum of 88, indicating a smooth experience with minor frame dips. High settings produce 58 FPS average, while Ultra drops slightly to 55 FPS. The narrow gap between High and Ultra at 1080p suggests that the GPU is not yet memory-limited at this resolution, and the performance is primarily dictated by the GPU’s compute throughput.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates show a noticeable decline. Low settings average 79 FPS, which is still highly playable. Medium averages 62 FPS, with a minimum of 52 and a maximum of 71, showing a wider variance than at 1080p. High settings drop to 46 FPS, and Ultra falls to 44 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS, indicating that the GPU is beginning to hit a performance ceiling that is not easily overcome by reducing settings from High to Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. Low settings average 59 FPS, which is adequate for a flight simulator, but Medium drops to 46 FPS with a minimum of 39 and a maximum of 52. High settings average 34 FPS, and Ultra averages 33 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 1 FPS, which strongly suggests that the 8 GB VRAM is fully saturated and that further reducing settings from High to Ultra does not yield meaningful performance gains. The data shows that at 4K, the system is struggling to maintain 60 FPS even at Low settings, and players would need to accept lower frame rates or reduce resolution to achieve a smoother experience.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT ranks 2210 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower third of all configurations, which is expected given the GPU’s mid-range positioning. The rank is primarily driven by the GPU’s performance, as the CPU is in the 96th percentile and would rank much higher if paired with a more capable graphics card. The data indicates that this combination is not well-suited for high-resolution or high-detail gaming in this title, but it can still provide a playable experience at lower settings.

The combination’s rank is also reflected in the GPU’s percentile vs all GPUs, which is 59th, and its average benchmark score of 16361. This places the RX 5700 XT in the middle of the pack, and its performance in this game is consistent with its overall benchmark positioning. The CPU’s high percentile does not compensate for the GPU’s limitations, as the game’s frame rates are clearly GPU-bound. The fact that the combo ranks 2210 out of 2996 suggests that there are many better-performing combinations, but also that there are worse ones, and the system is capable of running the game at acceptable frame rates at 1080p Medium or Low.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination depend on the user’s resolution and performance preferences. At 1080p, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, with an average of 77 FPS and a minimum of 65 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience. The Low preset provides the highest frame rate at 98 FPS, but the visual quality is significantly reduced. The High and Ultra presets are also viable at 1080p, with averages of 58 and 55 FPS respectively, but they do not offer a substantial visual improvement over Medium to justify the lower frame rates.

At 1440p, the Low preset is the most playable option, with an average of 79 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 62 FPS, which is still acceptable for a flight simulator, but the minimum of 52 FPS may cause occasional stutters in dense scenery. High and Ultra are playable but not ideal, with averages of 46 and 44 FPS, which may be too low for users who prefer a smooth experience. The data shows that at 1440p, users should stick to Low or Medium settings to maintain frame rates above 60 FPS.

At 4K, the system is heavily GPU-limited, and the Low preset is the only option that provides a consistently playable experience, with an average of 59 FPS. The Medium preset averages 46 FPS, which may be acceptable for some users, but the minimum of 39 FPS could be problematic. High and Ultra are not recommended at 4K, as they average 34 and 33 FPS respectively, which is below the threshold for a smooth simulation experience. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1440p with a 62 FPS average is the best compromise between fidelity and performance. Overall, the data suggests that this combination is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can run at Medium settings with a 77 FPS average, providing a solid experience without requiring significant compromises in visual quality.