Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 2316 out of 2996 tested combos in the database. That places it in the lower third of all tested configurations, indicating that while it can run the game, it is not positioned among high-performance pairings for this specific title.

Q: How does the Radeon RX 6600 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19036 and sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 with a score of 19030 (deltaPct 0), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049 (deltaPct -0.1) and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at 19089 (deltaPct -0.3). The data shows the RX 6600 is essentially tied with these cards in aggregate performance.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 92 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 51 FPS average. That is a 41 FPS gap between the lowest and highest quality settings, representing a substantial 44.6% reduction in average frame rate when moving from Low to Ultra.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck or the GPU bottleneck at 4K resolution in this game?

A: At 3840x2160, the frame rates range from 31 FPS on Ultra to 55 FPS on Low. The relatively narrow spread between settings (24 FPS) combined with the overall low FPS numbers suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor at this resolution, as even the Low preset cannot reach 60 FPS.

Q: What is the boost clock of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and how many cores does it have?

A: The CPU has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It is built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, and fits the Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD Radeon RX 6600?

A: The launch MSRP of the RX 6600 is 329 USD.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It carries 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, along with 28 ray tracing cores. The GPU has a base clock of 1626 MHz, a game clock of 2044 MHz, and a boost clock of 2491 MHz. Memory configuration includes 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS data shows this GPU is the dominant constraint across most settings and resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 92 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 51 FPS. The pattern continues at higher resolutions: 1440p ranges from 74 FPS on Low to 41 FPS on Ultra, and 4K ranges from 55 FPS on Low to 31 FPS on Ultra. The performance scaling closely tracks the GPU's computational limits, particularly given the 8 GB VRAM capacity which may become a factor at higher resolutions where texture data and geometry load increase significantly.

The RX 6600's benchmark profile supports this interpretation. Its PassMark G3D score is 15096, while its DirectX 12 score is only 51, indicating that modern API workloads like those in Flight Simulator may not be its strongest area. The GPU sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, which aligns with mid-range positioning. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (score 18954, deltaPct 0.4) and the Quadro K6000 (score 19030, deltaPct 0), showing that this is a competitive but not exceptional performer in its class.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2316 out of 2996 places this configuration in the 77th percentile position from the bottom, or roughly the lower quarter of all tested combinations. This is a significant data point because Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to be demanding on both CPU and GPU, and this pairing clearly does not break into the upper echelons of performance.

Looking at the CPU's position relative to its rivals provides context. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, ranking at the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with a score of 83807 and a deltaPct of 0.2, meaning the 290K Plus is marginally ahead. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (score 83090, deltaPct 1.1) and AMD EPYC 9135 (score 82980, deltaPct 1.2) trail slightly, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 (score 85072, deltaPct -1.3) is actually ahead of the 290K Plus by 1.3%. Despite this strong CPU showing, the combo rank is low, which strongly suggests the GPU is holding back the overall experience in this game.

The discrepancy between the CPU's high percentile (96th) and the combo's low rank (77th percentile from bottom) is telling. In a game like Flight Simulator, which can be heavily single-thread bound in certain scenarios but also benefits from multi-core performance, the CPU has plenty of headroom. The data implies that upgrading the GPU while keeping the same CPU would yield a much better combo rank, whereas the reverse would not help much.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results show a clear progression across presets. Low settings deliver 92 FPS average, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo in any configuration. Medium settings produce 72 FPS average with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. High settings drop to 54 FPS average, and Ultra brings the frame rate down to 51 FPS average. The gap between Low and Medium is 20 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end of the quality spectrum.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same pattern repeats with lower absolute numbers. Low settings yield 74 FPS average, Medium produces 58 FPS average (min 49, max 66), High drops to 43 FPS average, and Ultra bottoms out at 41 FPS average. The delta between Low and Ultra is 33 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the 1080p results. Notably, the 1440p Low setting still manages to exceed 60 FPS, which is a playable threshold for most users.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes marginal. Low settings achieve 55 FPS average, Medium drops to 43 FPS average (min 36, max 49), High falls to 32 FPS average, and Ultra reaches only 31 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra is 24 FPS, and no preset at 4K reaches 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K shows the only recorded minimum and maximum values (36-49 FPS) across all 4K rows, indicating some frame time variability even at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Low preset at 92 FPS average is the only configuration that approaches high-refresh-rate territory, but the Medium preset at 72 FPS average (min 61, max 82) offers a much better balance between visual quality and smoothness. The High preset at 54 FPS is passable, but Ultra at 51 FPS provides only a marginal visual improvement over High for a 3 FPS loss, so High is the more sensible choice if visual fidelity is a priority.

At 1440p, the Low preset at 74 FPS is the only option that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Medium at 58 FPS (min 49, max 66) is borderline playable but may experience noticeable dips below 60. High at 43 FPS and Ultra at 41 FPS are both below the smoothness threshold, so for most users, Medium represents the best compromise at this resolution, offering a 15 FPS improvement over High while still maintaining decent visual quality.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. Low at 55 FPS is the only preset that approaches playable frame rates, but it still falls short of 60 FPS. Medium at 43 FPS (min 36, max 49) is the next step up, but the frame dips to 36 FPS could be noticeable. High at 32 FPS and Ultra at 31 FPS are both quite choppy. For 4K, the data suggests that Low is the only realistic choice for a smooth experience, and even then, users may need to accept some compromises.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently offers the best balance between quality and performance, with the 1080p Medium (72 FPS) and 1440p Medium (58 FPS) being the standout configurations. The 4K Medium is less compelling due to the 36 FPS minimum, but it is still preferable to High or Ultra.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, along with ECC memory support.

In terms of raw CPU benchmarks, this processor is a powerhouse. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 51731, and its single-core score is 7303. PassMark multi-thread score is 60860, while single-thread is 4823. The CPU sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807 (deltaPct 0.2), showing that the 290K Plus is only marginally faster despite being a newer part.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU role is substantial but not the primary bottleneck for this combo. Given that the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile while the GPU ranks in the 63rd percentile, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor in most scenarios. However, the CPU's high single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 7303, PassMark single-thread 4823) is important for Flight Simulator's simulation logic, which involves complex flight dynamics, weather calculations, and terrain loading. The 24 cores also help with multi-threaded tasks like AI traffic and scenery generation.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the constraint in this pairing. If it were, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers across different resolutions, but the measured FPS drops significantly from 1080p to 4K (e.g., from 92 to 55 FPS on Low settings). This resolution-dependent scaling indicates GPU limitation rather than CPU limitation.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important insights about the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 92 at 1080p to 74 at 1440p (a 19.6% decrease) and then to 55 at 4K (a 25.7% decrease from 1440p). At Medium settings, the progression is 72 to 58 to 43 FPS, representing a 19.4% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 25.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. High settings go from 54 to 43 to 32 FPS (20.4% then 25.6% drops), and Ultra goes from 51 to 41 to 31 FPS (19.6% then 24.4% drops).

The consistent pattern of approximately 20% FPS loss from 1080p to 1440p and another 25% from 1440p to 4K is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU workload (simulation, AI, physics) does not increase with resolution. Instead, the steady decline in FPS as pixel count increases points directly to the RX 6600's rendering capabilities being the bottleneck.

The fact that even at 1080p Low, the combo only achieves 92 FPS (not a high-refresh-rate number) further reinforces this. A CPU-bound configuration would typically show higher FPS at lower resolutions before hitting the CPU ceiling. Here, the GPU seems to cap performance even at the lightest resolution and settings combination.

Looking at the 4K Medium row specifically, the minimum FPS of 36 and maximum of 49 show a 13 FPS range, which is the largest variance recorded in the dataset. This could indicate moments where the GPU is struggling with complex scenes, or where the CPU's simulation thread creates temporary stalls. Either way, the overall trend is clear: this combo is GPU-limited across all tested configurations, and the CPU has significant headroom for future GPU upgrades.