Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces a very specific performance profile. The benchmark data shows a system that is clearly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, but which leverages a very strong processor to maintain playable frame rates even when the graphics card is pushed to its limits. This combination ranks in the 1304th position out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the upper half of all systems tested for this game. The data indicates that while the GPU is the primary bottleneck for visual fidelity, the CPU provides a robust foundation that prevents frame rate collapses in less demanding scenarios.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic resolution scaling curve that is heavily influenced by the GPU's capabilities. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the system achieves an average of 74 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same High preset, the average drops to 60 FPS, a decrease of 14 frames. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 44 FPS. This pattern demonstrates a significant performance cost as pixel count increases, with the gap between 1080p and 4K being a substantial 30 FPS. The data suggests that the Radeon RX 6750 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the data throughput, but the raw compute power of its 2560 shading units becomes the limiting factor as resolution scales.

The scaling from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution further clarifies the bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the system hits 127 FPS, but at 4K Low, it still manages 75 FPS. This is a smaller relative drop compared to the High preset, indicating that at lower settings, the CPU has more headroom to push frames. However, the transition from Low to Ultra at 4K shows a stark difference: 75 FPS down to 42 FPS. This 33 FPS penalty for maxing out visual quality highlights that the GPU is the component that struggles most with the game's high-resolution texture and shading workloads. The frame time consistency also degrades at higher resolutions, with the 4K Medium preset showing a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 67 FPS, a variance of 17 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is working at near-peak capacity.

The data points to a system that is primarily GPU-bound in this title, especially at 1440p and 4K. The CPU's influence is most apparent at 1080p, where the 127 FPS Low result shows the processor can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them at higher settings. However, once the resolution increases, the GPU's limitations take precedence, and the performance gap between settings becomes more pronounced. For users targeting high refresh rate monitors, 1080p is the only viable resolution for High or Ultra settings. At 1440p, the system is still playable, but the 57 FPS average on Ultra suggests that compromises must be made for smoother gameplay. The 4K results are playable only on Low settings, where the 75 FPS average is respectable, but the 42 FPS Ultra result is below the threshold for a fluid experience.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the High preset offers the best balance, delivering 74 FPS. While the Low preset achieves a much higher 127 FPS, the visual fidelity trade-off is significant. The Medium preset at 99 FPS is a solid middle ground, but High provides a more immersive experience without dropping below the 60 FPS threshold. The Ultra preset at 71 FPS is also viable, but the 3 FPS gain over High is marginal, suggesting that the High preset is the more efficient choice for the same visual quality experience.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts to the Medium preset, which delivers an average of 79 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS. This is the only preset at 1440p that maintains a frame rate comfortably above 60 FPS. The High preset at 60 FPS is playable but leaves no headroom for demanding scenes, and the Ultra preset at 57 FPS risks dipping below 60 FPS during complex flight scenarios. The Low preset at 102 FPS is smooth, but it nullifies the benefits of a higher resolution by reducing texture and shadow quality. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for 1440p, offering a good balance between visual fidelity and performance.

For 3840x2160, the only playable option is the Low preset, which averages 75 FPS. The Medium preset at 59 FPS is borderline, with a minimum of 50 FPS that could cause noticeable stutters in dense environments. High and Ultra presets at 44 FPS and 42 FPS, respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience, as they fall well below the 60 FPS target. The data indicates that this GPU is not capable of handling high or ultra settings at 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and users should either lower the resolution or accept reduced visual quality. In summary, the best experience per the measured data is High at 1080p, Medium at 1440p, and Low at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a formidable processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, operating at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its benchmark results show exceptional multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. This processor sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is among the top 4% of processors tested. The data shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck in this game, as evidenced by the high FPS results at 1080p Low settings, where the system achieves 127 FPS.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical for handling the simulation logic, physics, and draw calls for the vast world. The 24 threads of the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provide ample parallel processing power for these tasks. The PassMark multi-thread score of 60860 and the data compression score of 698346 indicate that the processor can handle complex calculations efficiently. The single-thread performance, as measured by PassMark's single-thread score of 4823, is also strong, which is important because the game's main thread often relies on single-core performance.

The benchmark data shows that the CPU is capable of pushing frame rates higher than the GPU can render, particularly at lower resolutions. The difference between the 127 FPS Low and 74 FPS High at 1080p is likely due to the GPU's workload, not the CPU's limitations. The CPU's high performance ensures that even in complex scenarios with heavy AI traffic or detailed scenery, the frame rate will not collapse due to processor constraints. The 3 nm process node and 36 MB of shared L3 cache contribute to its efficiency, but the raw core count and clock speed are the primary drivers of its performance. Compared to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, it is 0.2% faster in average benchmark scores, showing that it is at the top of the stack for gaming and simulation tasks.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1304th out of 2996 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the upper half of all tested systems, specifically at the 56th percentile. This rank is a reflection of the GPU's mid-range performance, as the CPU is a top-tier part. The rank suggests that there are many systems with faster GPUs that achieve higher frame rates, but this combination still outperforms a significant portion of the tested configurations.

The rank is likely pulled down by the GPU, which has a percentile rank of 71 among all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 96th percentile. This disparity highlights that the GPU is the limiting factor in this combination. The combo rank of 1304 indicates that while the CPU provides a strong foundation, the GPU's performance ceiling prevents this system from reaching the top tiers. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, which is 0.5% slower, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, which is 1.1% slower. This shows that the GPU is competitive with other mid-range options, but not with high-end cards.

The data implies that users with this combination are getting the most out of their GPU, but the CPU has significant headroom for a future GPU upgrade. If paired with a more powerful graphics card, the combo rank would likely improve substantially, as the CPU would not bottleneck the system. The current rank of 1304 out of 2996 is respectable, but it clearly shows that the GPU is the component that determines the overall performance in this demanding title. The benchmark results show that the system is capable of playing the game, but it requires careful settings management to achieve smooth frame rates at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is a mid-range graphics card based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, featuring 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. It has a base clock of 2150 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 20700 places it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, indicating that it is a solid performer for its class. Its FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS gives it the raw compute power to handle modern games, but as the resolution increases, this power becomes insufficient for the highest settings.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the highly detailed scenery, including terrain, buildings, and weather effects. The data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at resolutions above 1080p. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 42, which is a 67% reduction from the 127 FPS at 1080p Low. This significant drop indicates that the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are overwhelmed by the pixel count and texture detail. The 12 GB of VRAM is sufficient for the game's textures, but the GPU's compute capacity limits its ability to process the increased workload.

The GPU's performance is also affected by the settings preset. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 45 FPS (102 vs 57), which shows that the game's Ultra settings introduce a heavy load on the GPU. The GPU's 40 ray tracing cores are present, but Microsoft Flight Simulator does not heavily utilize them, so the main workload falls on the traditional shading units. The GPU's boost clock of 2600 MHz is high, but it cannot compensate for the lack of raw compute power compared to higher-end cards. The data suggests that the RX 6750 XT is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K requiring significant graphical compromises.

The GPU's memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s is adequate for the game's data streaming, but it is not a limiting factor in the measured results. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU's core performance, as evidenced by the frame rate scaling with resolution. The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, is 0.5% slower, showing that this card is positioned at a specific performance tier. For users seeking higher frame rates at 4K, a more powerful GPU would be necessary, but for 1080p and 1440p gaming, this card provides a competent experience when settings are adjusted appropriately.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Microsoft Flight Simulator with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 with High settings is the best experience, delivering 74 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium settings are recommended for 79 FPS, while 3840x2160 is only playable on Low settings with 75 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus or the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT the bottleneck in this system?

A: The benchmark data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU's performance is in the 96th percentile, while the GPU is in the 71st. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 127 FPS, showing the CPU can push frames faster than the GPU can render at higher settings.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 1304th out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the upper half of all systems. The rank is limited by the GPU, as the CPU is a top-tier performer.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: Yes, but not at a playable frame rate. The data shows 42 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is below the 60 FPS target. The Low preset at 4K achieves 75 FPS, which is the only viable option for 4K.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: The difference is substantial. Low settings average 102 FPS, while Ultra settings average 57 FPS, a 45 FPS drop. Medium settings provide a balanced 79 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU's memory capacity affect performance in this game?

A: The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for the game's textures, as the frame rate drops are more attributable to the GPU's shading unit workload. The memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s does not appear to be a limiting factor in the measured results.