Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 7600

This combination delivers a playable but not exceptional experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the system ranking 2027th out of 2996 tested combos. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provides substantial multi-core headroom, but the AMD Radeon RX 7600 becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings, capping performance well below what the CPU alone could support. The data shows a system that shines at 1080p with lower presets but struggles to maintain smooth frame rates at 4K Ultra.

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 by TSMC with 17,800 million transistors. It runs at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts up to 5.80 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU scores an average benchmark score of 84,003, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested.

In multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 60,860, while single-thread performance reaches 4,823. These numbers indicate a processor with exceptional computational throughput, particularly in tasks that leverage all 24 cores. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to scale with CPU performance for physics, AI traffic, and world simulation, this CPU provides ample headroom.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus leads the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K by 0.2% in average score, trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%, and sits 1.1% and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX and AMD EPYC 9135, respectively. These deltas are small, suggesting that within this performance tier, the CPU is competitive but not dramatically superior to close alternatives.

The benchmark results reveal a processor that excels at both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded tasks. The PassMark integer math score of 166,194 and floating point math score of 214,760 indicate strong arithmetic capability, while the data compression score of 698,346 shows efficient handling of memory-intensive operations. For a flight simulator, these traits translate into smooth terrain rendering, consistent frame pacing, and the ability to handle complex add-on scenarios without CPU-bound stutter.

At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 101 FPS average, which is the highest measured result across all configurations. This suggests that even at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work, the CPU can feed frames efficiently. However, the CPU's theoretical capability is not fully utilized in this game, as the measured frame rates at higher settings and resolutions are constrained by the GPU. The core count and clock speed provide a strong foundation, but the practical ceiling in Microsoft Flight Simulator is determined by the graphics card.

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

The measured FPS data spans four quality presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — across three resolutions. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 101 FPS, which is the smoothest experience available with this combo. Medium at 1080p yields 79 FPS with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS, providing a balanced trade-off. High at 1080p drops to 59 FPS, while Ultra falls to 56 FPS.

The data indicates that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this combination. It maintains an average above 60 FPS, with a minimum of 67 FPS that keeps frame drops from becoming disruptive. The jump from Medium to High costs 20 FPS (from 79 to 59), which is a significant loss for what is likely a modest visual improvement. Ultra at 56 FPS is only 3 FPS below High, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

At 1440p, the Medium preset delivers 63 FPS average with a minimum of 54 FPS and maximum of 73 FPS. This is playable, but the minimum dips below 60 FPS, which may cause noticeable hitches. Low at 1440p reaches 81 FPS, while High drops to 48 FPS and Ultra to 45 FPS. For 1440p users, Medium is the recommended preset, as it keeps the average above 60 while the minimum remains within an acceptable range. Low is the only preset that guarantees a fully smooth experience at this resolution, but it sacrifices visual fidelity.

At 4K, the picture changes dramatically. Low settings produce 60 FPS average, which is exactly at the threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium delivers 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 54 FPS, High drops to 35 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 33 FPS. For 4K, the Low preset is the only viable option for consistent playability. Medium at 4K is borderline, with a 40 FPS minimum that will be noticeable during complex scenes.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium, which offers the highest average FPS above 60 while retaining moderate visual quality. Users prioritizing smoothness over visuals should select 1080p Low for 101 FPS, while those with 1440p displays should accept the 63 FPS Medium preset as the practical ceiling. At 4K, the data shows that this GPU simply cannot handle higher presets without dropping below acceptable frame rates.

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

The measured frame rates show a clear and consistent decline as resolution increases, which points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck in this system. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 59 at 1080p to 48 at 1440p (an 18.6% reduction) and then to 35 at 4K (a 40.7% reduction from 1440p). This pattern is typical of a GPU-limited scenario, where the number of pixels rendered directly impacts performance.

At Low settings, the scaling is similar: 101 FPS at 1080p, 81 FPS at 1440p (a 19.8% drop), and 60 FPS at 4K (a 25.9% drop from 1440p). The percentage decrease from 1440p to 4K is smaller at Low settings than at High settings, which suggests that at lower quality presets, the GPU has less per-pixel work and can better keep up with the resolution increase. Even so, the 4K Low result of 60 FPS is exactly half of the 1080p Low result, reinforcing the GPU-bound nature of this pairing.

Medium settings follow the same trajectory: 79 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p (a 20.3% drop), and 47 FPS at 4K (a 25.4% drop from 1440p). Ultra settings show the steepest absolute decline, from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p (a 19.6% drop) and then to 33 FPS at 4K (a 26.7% drop from 1440p). Across all presets, the resolution scaling is consistent, with each step up in resolution costing roughly 20-40% of the frame rate.

This data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting component at any measured configuration. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between resolutions, as the CPU would cap performance regardless of pixel count. Instead, the frame rates scale inversely with pixel count, which is the signature of GPU saturation. The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has sufficient headroom to feed the Radeon RX 7600 in this game, but the GPU's 8 GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus become the constraining factors at higher resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 7600 ranks 2027th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower third of all systems tested. This ranking reflects the significant mismatch between the high-end CPU and the mid-range GPU. While the processor is in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, the graphics card sits in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, and the overall result is dragged down by the GPU's performance ceiling.

The combo rank suggests that many other CPU-GPU pairings deliver better frame rates in this game, even if their CPUs are less powerful. The data implies that a more balanced pairing — perhaps a mid-range CPU with a higher-tier GPU — would likely rank higher, as Microsoft Flight Simulator is more sensitive to graphics processing than to raw CPU throughput at the settings tested.

Compared to other combos with the same GPU but different CPUs, this pairing benefits from the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's strong single-thread performance, which helps with the game's simulation logic. However, the measured FPS values show that this advantage does not translate into top-tier frame rates. The 1080p Low result of 101 FPS is respectable, but the 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS is below what many other combos with similar GPU scores would achieve.

The ranking of 2027 out of 2996 means that roughly 68% of tested combos outperform this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a notable underperformance for a CPU that ranks in the top 4% of all processors. The takeaway is that the GPU is the decisive factor in this game's performance, and users seeking better results should prioritize a stronger graphics card over a more powerful CPU.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is a RDNA 3.0 architecture GPU, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, built on a 6 nm process by TSMC with 13,300 million transistors. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1720 MHz, a game clock of 2250 MHz, and a boost clock of 2655 MHz, with memory operating at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). It has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores, delivering 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 15,171, placing it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs. Its PassMark G3D score is 16,634, with a DirectX 12 score of 58 and a DirectX 11 score of 172. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2,310. These numbers indicate a mid-range card that is competitive with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (which trails by 0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (ahead by 0.6%), the AMD Radeon 680M (trailing by 0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (ahead by 0.7%). The GPU's launch MSRP is 269 USD.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for loading large textures and terrain data. At 1080p Medium, the game fits within the VRAM budget, allowing 79 FPS. However, at 4K Ultra, the VRAM is likely saturated, contributing to the 33 FPS result. The 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the bandwidth becomes a limiting factor as the GPU must move more texture data per frame.

The GPU's boost clock of 2655 MHz is relatively high, and the 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 performance is adequate for mid-range gaming. Yet, the measured frame rates show that this card cannot maintain high FPS at 4K with medium or higher presets. The 4K Low result of 60 FPS is the only 4K configuration that reaches playable levels, and it does so only by reducing the per-pixel workload to a minimum. The GPU's role in this pairing is to provide a baseline experience, with the understanding that higher resolutions and settings will expose its limitations.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and preset for this combo?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1080p Medium offers the best balance, delivering 79 FPS average with a minimum of 67 FPS. For 4K, only the Low preset reaches 60 FPS average, while Medium drops to 47 FPS.

Q: How does this CPU compare to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's 83,807. This is a negligible performance difference.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The resolution scaling data shows that FPS drops consistently from 1080p to 4K across all presets, indicating the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU's high benchmark scores do not translate into higher frame rates at higher resolutions.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1440p High settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 1440p High is 48, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Users should select 1440p Medium for 63 FPS average instead.

Q: How does this GPU rank against the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 has an average benchmark score of 15,171, which is 0.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM's 15,199. The two GPUs are effectively tied in performance.

Q: Does this combo support 4K Ultra settings?

A: No, the measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 33, which is well below playable levels. The data suggests that 4K Low (60 FPS) is the only viable 4K option for this pairing.