Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the engine driving this Flight Simulator configuration. It packs 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This is a high-core-count design from the Arrow Lake Refresh generation, built on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3, which gives the CPU substantial on-die storage for flight simulation's sprawling world data.

The CPU's benchmark standing is strong. In the overall CPU percentile, it ranks in the 96th percentile versus all CPUs, and its average benchmark score is 84,003. The nearest rival in the data is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83,807 — a delta of just 0.2%, meaning these two are effectively head-to-head. The AMD EPYC 4584PX sits 1.1% behind, and the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% behind, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% ahead. The margin between the 290K Plus and its closest competitor is so slim that real-world game performance differences will be dictated by other factors, not raw CPU throughput.

In Cinebench tests, the 290K Plus posts a multicore score of 51,731 in R23 and 21,727 in R20, with single-core scores of 7,303 and 3,067 respectively. PassMark multithread score is 60,860, while single-thread is 4,823. For a flight simulator, single-thread performance is often critical because the simulation logic, aircraft systems, and weather calculations frequently run on a limited number of threads. The 5.80 GHz boost clock is the headline here — that high frequency directly feeds the single-core scores, and it's what helps the CPU keep up with the GPU when flying over dense scenery at lower resolutions.

The CPU's 125W TDP with a 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth on dual-channel DDR5 suggests it's built for sustained compute, not just bursty workloads. The 24 cores handle the background tasks, AI traffic, and physics simulation that Flight Simulator spawns, while the high boost clock handles the main rendering thread. The data shows a clear pattern: at 1080p, where the CPU has more relative influence, the frame rates are highest, which corroborates that this processor is not the bottleneck in most scenarios. Its 96th percentile rank means it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the benchmark database, and the near-identical score to the 285K indicates that the Plus variant offers no meaningful uplift in synthetic tests — just a slightly different bin.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the graphics workhorse, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 21 chip on a 7 nm TSMC process. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The base clock is 1825 MHz, the boost clock is 2250 MHz, and the game clock is 2015 MHz. Memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed.

The GPU's compute resources are substantial: 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 72 ray accelerators. It delivers 20.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 648.0 GTexel/s. The pixel rate is 288.0 GPixel/s. With 16 GB of VRAM, this card is well-equipped for Flight Simulator's massive terrain textures and high-resolution aircraft models — the data shows no indication of VRAM-related frame drops in the measured rows, even at 4K Ultra.

In GPU benchmarks, the RX 6800 XT sits in the 85th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48,477. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile is 1.5% ahead, the Intel Arc A550M is 2.5% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is 3% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is also 3% behind. The RTX 5070 Ti being behind by 3% in average score is notable — it suggests the RX 6800 XT still holds its own against much newer hardware in synthetic metrics, though game-specific performance can vary widely.

For Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the photorealistic terrain, dynamic lighting, and volumetric clouds. The 16 GB VRAM is a key asset here because the simulator streams high-resolution satellite imagery and elevation data, and the 512.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture data flows quickly to the shading units. The 72 ray accelerators handle the ray-traced shadows and reflections that Ultra settings enable, though the data shows that Ultra presets still produce playable frame rates at all resolutions, which indicates the GPU can manage the computational load.

The RX 6800 XT is marked as end-of-life in production status, and its launch MSRP was 649 USD. The GPU's 85th percentile rank is respectable but not elite — it's clearly a high-end card from its generation, but it faces stiff competition from newer architectures. The measured game data will show exactly how it handles this title's demands.

# How This Combo Ranks

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 882nd out of 2,996 tested combinations. That places it in the top 29.4% of all combos in the database, which is a solid but not outstanding position. The rank reflects the fact that while both components are individually strong — the CPU in the 96th percentile and the GPU in the 85th — the pairing doesn't reach the top tier of results.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. The 290K Plus outperforms the 285K by a hair, and its single-core scores are excellent, which should give it an edge in a simulation-heavy game like this one. The GPU, however, is the more modest component in the pairing. The RX 6800 XT's 85th percentile rank means there are many faster GPUs in the database, and at higher resolutions, the GPU's relative weakness becomes more apparent.

The combo rank of 882 suggests that this is a balanced mid-high-end setup, not an extreme enthusiast rig. It's competitive with other combos that pair high-core-count CPUs with mid-to-high-end GPUs, but it doesn't crack the top tier where you'd find the RTX 4090s and RX 7900 XTXs of the world. The rank is a function of both components' positions in their respective distributions, and the GPU's lower percentile drags the overall rank down from what the CPU alone might suggest.

Notably, the combo rank is game-specific. Flight Simulator is known to be demanding on both CPU and GPU, and this combo's position reflects how the two components interact under that specific workload. The measured FPS data will show that the combo is capable of smooth gameplay at most settings, but the rank reveals that it's not among the elite setups for this title.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of how this combo performs across three resolutions and four settings presets. The data includes average FPS for every combination, with minimum and maximum FPS recorded only for the Medium preset at each resolution.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 153 avg FPS
• Medium: 119 avg FPS (min 101, max 137)
• High: 90 avg FPS
• Ultra: 85 avg FPS

At 1080p, the combo delivers excellent frame rates across the board. The Low preset hits 153 FPS, which is far beyond what any monitor at this resolution needs. Medium drops to 119 FPS, still very smooth. High cuts it down to 90 FPS, and Ultra sits at 85 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 5 FPS, which suggests that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not severely taxing the system at this resolution.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 123 avg FPS
• Medium: 96 avg FPS (min 82, max 110)
• High: 72 avg FPS
• Ultra: 69 avg FPS

Moving to 1440p, the frame rates drop noticeably but remain playable. Low hits 123 FPS, Medium 96 FPS, High 72 FPS, and Ultra 69 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is again small — just 3 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 82 FPS and a maximum of 110 FPS, indicating some frame time variance but nothing that would cause stuttering issues.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 91 avg FPS
• Medium: 71 avg FPS (min 60, max 81)
• High: 53 avg FPS
• Ultra: 51 avg FPS

At 4K, the combo starts to struggle at higher settings. Low still delivers 91 FPS, which is smooth. Medium drops to 71 FPS with a minimum of 60 FPS — that's right at the edge of what most would consider playable. High falls to 53 FPS, and Ultra to 51 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is just 2 FPS, showing that the GPU is heavily taxed at this resolution and the preset differences start to blur.

The data reveals a clear pattern: the combo is capable of high refresh rate gaming at 1080p, smooth 60+ FPS at 1440p on Medium, and only drops below 60 FPS at 4K on High and Ultra presets.

# Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data shows how the system's performance degrades as pixel count increases. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops are substantial across all settings. At Low, 153 FPS drops to 123 FPS — a 19.6% reduction. At Medium, 119 drops to 96 — a 19.3% reduction. At High, 90 drops to 72 — a 20% reduction. At Ultra, 85 drops to 69 — an 18.8% reduction. The consistency of these drops — all around 20% — indicates that the scaling is uniform and predictable.

From 1440p to 4K, the drops are more severe in absolute terms but similar in percentage. At Low, 123 drops to 91 — a 26% reduction. At Medium, 96 drops to 71 — a 26% reduction. At High, 72 drops to 53 — a 26.4% reduction. At Ultra, 69 drops to 51 — a 26.1% reduction. The increase in the percentage drop from 1440p to 4K compared to 1080p to 1440p suggests that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as resolution increases.

The key insight is that the CPU's influence diminishes as resolution rises. At 1080p, the high 153 FPS Low result hints that the CPU can push frames well beyond what the GPU can render at higher settings. The fact that Ultra at 1080p is 85 FPS while Low at 4K is 91 FPS shows that settings matter more than resolution at the extreme ends. The limiting component shifts from CPU-bound at 1080p Low to GPU-bound at 4K Ultra. The data shows that the GPU's pixel rate and bandwidth are the primary constraints at 4K, while the CPU's single-core speed is sufficient at all resolutions.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

At 1080p: The Ultra preset delivers 85 FPS, which is smooth and visually stunning. The drop from High to Ultra is only 5 FPS, so there's little reason not to enable Ultra if you want the best visual fidelity. Even at Ultra, the combo maintains a frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 119 FPS is the best choice for high-refresh-rate monitors (120Hz+), as it provides a significant smoothness boost over Ultra while still looking good. Low at 153 FPS is only relevant for competitive play, which is not typical for a flight simulator.

At 1440p: The High preset at 72 FPS is the sweet spot for visual quality and smoothness. Ultra at 69 FPS is nearly identical, so if you want max fidelity, the 3 FPS penalty is negligible. Medium at 96 FPS is excellent for those who prefer frame rate over visuals, and it's the recommended choice if you have a 100Hz+ monitor. Low at 123 FPS is overkill for this resolution. The Medium preset's minimum of 82 FPS ensures consistent performance without dips below 60 FPS.

At 4K: The Medium preset at 71 FPS is the clear winner. It's the only setting that maintains an average above 60 FPS while still providing a reasonable visual experience. The minimum of 60 FPS means it will occasionally dip to exactly 60, but it won't go below that threshold. High at 53 FPS and Ultra at 51 FPS are both below the 60 FPS line, and the small difference between them suggests that the GPU is saturated at this resolution. Low at 91 FPS is smooth, but the visual sacrifices are significant for a game that relies heavily on graphics. For 4K, the recommendation is Medium — it provides the best balance of playability and visual quality.

The best experience per the measured rows is at 1440p on High or Ultra, where the combo delivers 69-72 FPS with high visual fidelity. At 1080p, Ultra is the most immersive choice at 85 FPS. At 4K, Medium is the only way to stay above 60 FPS, and it's the recommended preset for that resolution.