Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 presents a fascinating study in system balance for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU sits in the 96th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 58th percentile. This gap alone hints that the graphics card will be the primary bottleneck in this flight sim, but the measured frame rates across resolutions and settings tell a more nuanced story. The combo lands at rank 1324 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the upper-middle tier of systems evaluated for this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average is 70 FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings. This is the lowest average among the four settings at this resolution, while Low settings achieve 126 FPS, Medium reaches 98 FPS, and High produces 74 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s 83807. This places the 290K Plus slightly ahead of its direct predecessor in synthetic CPU tests.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory bandwidth and how does it affect performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. This high bandwidth helps maintain playable frame rates at 4K resolution, where the card still delivers 44 FPS on High settings.

Q: Does the CPU have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. However, the measured FPS data in this analysis comes from the discrete AMD Radeon RX 7700, not the integrated solution.

Q: What is the combo’s ranking among all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 1324 out of 2996 tested combinations. This places it in the 44th percentile of all combos evaluated for this game, meaning roughly 56% of tested systems perform better.

Q: Which resolution and settings combination yields the highest average FPS?

A: The highest average FPS is 126, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is followed by 102 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings and 98 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 serves as the system’s graphics workhorse, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s, which is substantial for a mid-range GPU. The card operates at a base clock of 1900 MHz, a game clock of 2041 MHz, and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. These clocks, combined with 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines, define its raw throughput capabilities. The GPU’s FP32 performance is rated at 25.18 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role becomes evident when examining the FPS data across settings. At 1920x1080, dropping from Ultra to Low increases the average FPS from 70 to 126, a gain of 56 FPS. This substantial jump indicates that lower settings reduce the GPU’s workload significantly, allowing it to render frames faster. However, the GPU still holds the system back at higher settings. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS falls to 42, which is below the 44 FPS seen at High settings. This counterintuitive result suggests that Ultra settings impose a heavier shader or geometry load that the RX 7700 cannot fully handle, even with its 16 GB frame buffer.

The memory capacity proves sufficient across all tested configurations, as none of the measured rows show signs of VRAM exhaustion causing stutters or crashes. The bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s helps maintain consistent frame delivery, particularly at 2560x1440 where Medium settings produce a minimum FPS of 67 and a maximum of 91. The GPU’s dual-slot design and 200 W TDP indicate it requires adequate cooling, but the benchmark data does not include thermal throttling metrics. Overall, the RX 7700 delivers playable performance at 1080p and 1440p across most settings, but struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K except on Low settings, where it hits 75 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 1324 out of 2996 tested combinations places it in the 44th percentile for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking reflects the balance between the high-end CPU and the mid-range GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus excels in synthetic benchmarks, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4823 further confirms strong per-core performance. However, the AMD Radeon RX 7700’s PassMark G3D score of 20974 places it in the 58th percentile among GPUs, which drags the overall combo ranking down.

Compared to other combos, this pairing sits in the middle of the pack. The CPU’s nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807 on average, just 0.2% below the 290K Plus’s 84003. The AMD EPYC 4584PX and EPYC 9135 trail by 1.1% and 1.2% respectively, while the EPYC 7F72 leads by 1.3% with a score of 85072. On the GPU side, the RX 7700’s average benchmark score of 15852 is nearly identical to the Radeon R9 370X’s 15862, which is 0.1% lower. The RX 9060 leads by 1%, while the Pro W5500 trails by 1.1% and the RTX 3060 Ti leads by 1.7% with a score of 16129.

The ranking suggests that for a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its CPU-intensive physics and scenery calculations, the CPU’s strength does not fully compensate for the GPU’s limitations. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system falls to 42 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many users consider smooth. The rank of 1324 out of 2996 indicates that many other combinations, likely with more powerful GPUs, achieve higher frame rates in this game. The combo’s position in the 44th percentile is consistent with a pairing where the CPU outclasses the GPU by a significant margin.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing a comprehensive view of performance. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver an average of 126 FPS, Medium produces 98 FPS (with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 113), High reaches 74 FPS, and Ultra drops to 70 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 56 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the limiting factor as settings increase. The CPU’s high single-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303, ensures that even at 1080p Low, the system does not become CPU-bound, as the 126 FPS average suggests headroom remains.

Moving to 2560x1440, Low settings achieve 102 FPS, Medium produces 79 FPS (with a minimum of 67 and maximum of 91), High reaches 60 FPS, and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent reduction: Low drops from 126 to 102 FPS (an 19% decrease), Medium from 98 to 79 FPS (19% decrease), High from 74 to 60 FPS (19% decrease), and Ultra from 70 to 57 FPS (19% decrease). This uniform scaling suggests that neither the CPU nor GPU is hitting a hard wall at 1440p, and the system scales predictably with pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the performance degrades more steeply. Low settings yield 75 FPS, Medium produces 59 FPS (with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 67), High reaches 44 FPS, and Ultra drops to 42 FPS. The decrease from 1440p to 4K is more pronounced: Low drops from 102 to 75 FPS (26% decrease), Medium from 79 to 59 FPS (25% decrease), High from 60 to 44 FPS (27% decrease), and Ultra from 57 to 42 FPS (26% decrease). This steeper drop indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and pixel processing capabilities are being strained at 4K.

The medium settings rows include min and max FPS values, which provide insight into frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the range from 84 to 113 FPS shows a variance of 29 FPS, suggesting some scene-dependent spikes. At 1440p Medium, the range is 67 to 91 FPS, a variance of 24 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 50 to 67 FPS, a variance of 17 FPS. This narrowing variance at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes more consistently loaded, reducing the CPU’s ability to cause frame rate spikes.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals which component limits performance. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 126 at 1080p to 102 at 1440p (a 24 FPS drop) and then to 75 at 4K (a 27 FPS drop from 1440p). The total decrease from 1080p to 4K is 51 FPS, representing a 40% reduction. This scaling is relatively mild, suggesting that at Low settings, the CPU still has significant influence on frame rates, as the GPU is not fully saturated at lower resolutions.

At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 70 at 1080p to 57 at 1440p (a 13 FPS drop) and then to 42 at 4K (a 15 FPS drop from 1440p). The total decrease is 28 FPS, a 40% reduction from the 1080p baseline. Interestingly, the percentage drop is nearly identical between Low and Ultra settings (40% for both), which implies that the scaling behavior is consistent regardless of settings. This uniformity suggests that the rendering workload scales linearly with pixel count, and the GPU’s fill rate is the primary constraint.

However, the absolute FPS values tell a different story. At 4K Ultra, the system only manages 42 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. At 4K High, it reaches 44 FPS, still below 60. Only at 4K Low does it exceed 60 FPS, hitting 75 FPS. This indicates that for 4K gaming, users must compromise on settings to achieve acceptable frame rates. The CPU’s strong single-core performance, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4823, ensures that it is not the bottleneck at 4K, as the FPS drops are proportional to the pixel count increase.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a 19% FPS reduction across all settings, while the scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a 25-26% reduction. This steeper drop at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s and pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s are being taxed more heavily at 4K. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is not exceeded, but the computational load of rendering 8.3 million pixels per frame (at 4K) versus 2.1 million (at 1080p) puts pressure on the GPU’s shading units and ROPs.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user’s resolution and frame rate preference. For users targeting 60 FPS as a minimum, the 1920x1080 resolution offers the most flexibility. At 1080p, High settings deliver 74 FPS, which is above 60, while Ultra drops to 70 FPS, still above 60. This means users can enjoy near-maximum visual quality at 1080p without sacrificing smoothness. Medium settings at 98 FPS provide additional headroom for users who want to future-proof against demanding scenes, such as dense urban areas or storms.

At 2560x1440, the choice is more constrained. High settings produce 60 FPS, which is right at the threshold, but users may experience dips below 60 in complex scenes. Ultra settings at 57 FPS fall below 60, so users seeking consistent 60 FPS should stick with High. Medium settings at 79 FPS offer a comfortable buffer, making it the recommended choice for 1440p users who prioritize smoothness over visual fidelity. Low settings at 102 FPS are available for competitive or high-refresh-rate displays, but the visual compromise may be significant for a flight simulator.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot maintain 60 FPS on any setting except Low, which achieves 75 FPS. Medium settings at 59 FPS are just below 60, and the min FPS of 50 suggests occasional dips that could be noticeable. High and Ultra settings at 44 and 42 FPS respectively are playable but may feel less fluid, especially during rapid maneuvers or when flying over detailed terrain. For 4K users, Medium settings provide the best balance, offering 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50, which is acceptable for a slower-paced flight sim. Users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness may opt for High, but the 44 FPS average means the experience will be noticeably less fluid.

The data indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher settings, so users should prioritize lowering settings over reducing resolution to maintain frame rates. For example, dropping from 4K Ultra to 4K High only gains 2 FPS, while dropping from 4K High to 4K Medium gains 15 FPS. This suggests that Ultra settings impose a disproportionate performance cost relative to High, and users should avoid Ultra unless they have a GPU with higher throughput.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache provide ample data storage for flight simulator calculations. The CPU’s 3 nm process node and TSMC foundry indicate a modern design, and its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms its high-end status. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 highlight its strength in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle physics calculations, AI traffic, weather simulation, and scenery loading. The game is known to be CPU-intensive, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work. The measured data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 126 FPS, which is likely near the CPU’s limit for this game. The single-core performance, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4823, is crucial because flight simulators often rely on a few primary threads for core simulation logic.

However, the CPU’s performance is not fully utilized due to the GPU bottleneck at higher settings. At 4K Ultra, the CPU likely has significant headroom, as the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering load. This is evident from the FPS scaling: from 1080p to 4K at Ultra, the FPS drops by 40%, which aligns with the pixel count increase, indicating the CPU is not a limiting factor at 4K. The CPU’s 24 cores and 24 threads provide multi-threaded capability, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s engine may not scale perfectly across all cores, meaning the high boost clock of 5.80 GHz is more important than raw core count.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s (DDR5 dual-channel) may also influence performance, as the game streams terrain and scenery data from storage to memory. The CPU’s support for ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes adds to its versatility, but these features do not directly impact the measured FPS. The nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, performs within 0.2% of this CPU, suggesting that the 290K Plus offers minimal performance advantage in this game. The CPU’s 125 W TDP is reasonable for a high-end desktop processor, and its unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, though the data does not include overclocked results.

In summary, the CPU provides strong foundation for Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the GPU’s mid-range performance limits the system’s overall capability. The data suggests that users with this combo should focus on GPU settings to achieve desired frame rates, as the CPU is unlikely to be a bottleneck at standard resolutions and settings. The 44th percentile ranking reflects this imbalance, and users seeking higher frame rates at 4K may need to consider a more powerful GPU.