Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a unique benchmark target because it stresses the CPU, GPU, and memory subsystem in ways that most other titles do not. The data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT combination reveals a system that is capable of high frame rates at lower resolutions but becomes increasingly GPU-bound as the resolution climbs. The measured results show a clear pattern of scaling that can be dissected to understand the balance between the processor and the graphics card.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the foundation of this system, and its specifications suggest it is built to handle the heavy simulation workloads that Microsoft Flight Simulator generates. This processor features 24 cores and 24 threads, a configuration that prioritizes parallel throughput over simultaneous multithreading. The base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz indicate that while it can push high single-thread performance when needed, its primary strength lies in its ability to manage many tasks at once. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared, which is substantial for a desktop part and helps keep frequently accessed simulation data close to the cores.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU often handles the complex physics, flight dynamics, and world-streaming calculations. The benchmark results show that this processor does not bottleneck the system at 1080p, where the average FPS reaches 149 on Low settings. This high frame rate at a lower resolution indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU with enough data to maintain a fluid experience. The processor's performance in synthetic benchmarks reinforces its capability: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303 suggest a balanced architecture that excels in both multi-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,823 and multi-thread score of 60,860 further confirm that this is a high-end part.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 96 out of all CPUs places it in the top tier of available processors, which is consistent with its role as a flagship product. However, the measured FPS data shows that its influence on the game's performance wanes as the resolution increases. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 49, a figure that is likely constrained by the GPU rather than the CPU, as the processor's substantial headroom is not fully utilized. The data suggests that while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is more than adequate for this simulation, it is not the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz is particularly relevant for a game that still relies on single-core performance for certain calculations, and the benchmark results indicate that this high clock speed ensures the CPU does not become a bottleneck even in demanding scenarios.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the visual engine of this combo, and its specs are well-matched to the demands of a modern flight simulator. It comes with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. This is a critical specification for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams large amounts of terrain and texture data. The GPU's boost clock of 2430 MHz and a game clock of 2124 MHz are solid figures for the RDNA 3.0 architecture, and the 3840 shading units provide ample processing power for pixel and vertex work.

The GPU's role becomes evident when looking at the measured FPS across different settings. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 149, which is a very high frame rate that suggests the GPU is not heavily taxed. However, moving to 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 49, showing that the RX 7800 XT is working near its limits. The VRAM capacity of 16 GB is likely sufficient for the High and Ultra presets even at 4K, but the raw compute power is what dictates the performance drop. The GPU's benchmark scores, such as a PassMark G3D score of 24,176, place it in a mid-range tier, with a percentile ranking of 51 out of all GPUs. This is notably lower than the CPU's ranking, which highlights a potential imbalance in the system.

The data indicates that the RX 7800 XT is the primary determinant of frame rates at higher resolutions. Comparing the 1080p High average of 87 FPS to the 4K High average of 52 FPS shows a reduction of 35 FPS, which is a substantial hit. The GPU's nearest rival in the benchmark database is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, with a deltaPct of -0.5, meaning the RX 7800 XT is slightly slower in the synthetic average. This is an interesting data point, as it suggests that while the GPU is capable, it is not an exceptionally high-performing part relative to the CPU. The GPU's TDP of 263 W and dual-slot design indicate it is a power-hungry component, but the measured FPS data is what matters most for this analysis.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this system scales with resolution. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 149, which is a strong result. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 120 FPS, a reduction of 29 FPS or roughly 19.5%. At 4K Low, the average is 88 FPS, a further drop of 32 FPS from 1440p. This pattern shows that even at Low settings, the GPU is becoming a more significant factor as the pixel count increases. The drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 61 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is struggling to maintain the high frame rates that the CPU can support.

For Medium settings, the scaling is similar. The average FPS at 1080p is 116, dropping to 93 at 1440p and 69 at 4K. The step from 1080p to 1440p is a 23 FPS reduction, while the step from 1440p to 4K is a 24 FPS reduction. This consistent drop of around 20% per resolution step suggests a linear scaling pattern, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario. At High settings, the averages are 87 FPS at 1080p, 70 at 1440p, and 52 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 17 FPS, and from 1440p to 4K is 18 FPS. This further confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the relative performance loss is similar across all settings.

The Ultra settings show the most pronounced impact. The average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 83, dropping to 67 at 1440p and 49 at 4K. This is a reduction of 16 FPS from 1080p to 1440p and 18 FPS from 1440p to 4K. The fact that the 4K Ultra average of 49 FPS is just above the 30 FPS playability threshold suggests that this setting is very demanding for the RX 7800 XT. The data implies that the CPU has significant headroom at all resolutions, as the FPS drops are almost entirely attributable to the GPU's rendering workload. The largest performance delta is between 1080p Low (149 FPS) and 4K Ultra (49 FPS), a 100 FPS difference that highlights the GPU's constraint. For a simulation game that often involves complex scenery, this resolution scaling is a critical factor to consider.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT has a rank of 947 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 31.6% of all combinations, which is a respectable position given the GPU's mid-range standing. The rank is likely driven by the CPU's strong performance, as the GPU is not a top-tier part. In the database, the CPU ranks in the 96th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 51st percentile. This imbalance means that the combo's overall rank is dragged down by the GPU, but it still performs well enough to be in the upper third of all tested systems.

The combo's rank of 947 suggests that it is above average for this specific game, but it is not a top-tier setup. Many combos with higher-end GPUs will outrank it, especially at higher resolutions. However, the data shows that this system can deliver playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p across most settings, which is a solid result. The rank also implies that there is room for improvement, as pairing the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with a more powerful GPU would likely push the combo much higher in the rankings. The CPU's performance is not the bottleneck, so the rank is a reflection of the GPU's limitations in this specific title.

The nearest rivals for the CPU, such as the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with a deltaPct of 0.2, indicate that the 290K Plus is slightly faster in synthetic benchmarks, which could contribute to its performance in the game. However, the GPU's rivals, like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, are much older and less powerful, showing that the RX 7800 XT is in a different class. The combo rank of 947 is a useful metric for potential buyers, as it shows that this system is capable but not exceptional. The data indicates that the system is well-balanced for 1080p gaming but will struggle to maintain high frame rates at 4K with Ultra settings.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this combo to achieve a 60 FPS average?

A: The only setting that does not achieve a 60 FPS average at any resolution is Ultra. At 1080p, the Medium setting averages 116 FPS and High averages 87 FPS. At 1440p, Medium averages 93 FPS and High averages 70 FPS. Even at 4K, Medium averages 69 FPS and High averages 52 FPS, meaning only 4K High and Ultra fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its closest rival in the database?

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 score of 83,807. This indicates a very small performance advantage for the 290K Plus in synthetic tests.

Q: Is the GPU a bottleneck for this system at 1080p?

A: No, the data shows that at 1080p Low, the average FPS is 149, which is very high. The GPU is not a bottleneck at this resolution, as the CPU is likely able to feed it enough data to maintain high frame rates. The GPU only becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the average FPS is 87, while at 4K High, the average is 52. This is a difference of 35 FPS, which represents a 40.2% reduction in performance when moving from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Does the GPU have a higher or lower average benchmark score than its nearest rival?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,627, which is 0.5% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660's score of 11,680. This means the RX 7800 XT is slightly slower in the synthetic average.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium setting at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS recorded is 79, with a maximum of 107. This provides a range of frame rates that can be expected during gameplay.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data for this combo is comprehensive, covering three resolutions and four settings levels. At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are as follows: Low settings average 88 FPS, Medium settings average 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 and a maximum of 79, High settings average 52 FPS, and Ultra settings average 49 FPS. This shows a clear progression of decreasing performance as settings increase, with the gap between Low and Ultra being 39 FPS. The Medium setting at 4K is the only one with min/max data, indicating a range of 59 to 79 FPS, which suggests some variability in frame times.

At 2560x1440, the performance is higher across the board. Low settings average 120 FPS, Medium settings average 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 and a maximum of 107, High settings average 70 FPS, and Ultra settings average 67 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 53 FPS, which is a larger absolute gap than at 4K. The Medium setting again shows a range of 79 to 107 FPS, which is a wider spread than at 4K. At 1920x1080, the results are the strongest. Low settings average 149 FPS, Medium settings average 116 FPS with a minimum of 98 and a maximum of 133, High settings average 87 FPS, and Ultra settings average 83 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 66 FPS, which is the largest difference across all resolutions.

These numbers reveal that the system is most comfortable at 1080p, where even Ultra settings average 83 FPS, which is well above playability thresholds. At 1440p, the Ultra setting drops to 67 FPS, which is still acceptable but lower. At 4K, the Ultra setting averages 49 FPS, which may be borderline for some users. The Medium setting at 4K provides a balanced experience with an average of 69 FPS and a minimum of 59 FPS, suggesting that it is the most consistent option for 4K gaming. The data also shows that the GPU's performance scales relatively linearly with resolution, as the FPS drops are consistent across settings.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends on the user's resolution and preference for frame rate versus visual fidelity. For 1080p gaming, the Ultra setting is viable, with an average FPS of 83. This provides the highest visual quality while maintaining a frame rate that is above the 60 FPS threshold for most users. However, if a smoother experience is preferred, the High setting at 87 FPS offers a marginal improvement in frame rate with a slight reduction in visual quality. The Medium setting at 116 FPS is also an excellent choice for competitive or fast-paced play, but for a simulation game, the visual fidelity of Ultra is likely worth the frame rate trade-off.

For 1440p, the High setting is the best balance, with an average FPS of 70. This is above the 60 FPS playability threshold and provides good visual quality. The Ultra setting at 67 FPS is also acceptable, but the lower average FPS may lead to more noticeable frame drops in complex scenes. The Medium setting at 93 FPS is a strong option if the user prioritizes frame rate, but it sacrifices some visual detail. For 4K gaming, the Medium setting is the recommended choice, as it averages 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, ensuring that the frame rate rarely drops below 60. The High setting at 52 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and may result in a less smooth experience, while the Ultra setting at 49 FPS is not recommended for consistent gameplay.

The data suggests that the system is most effective at 1080p and 1440p, where it can handle high and ultra settings with ease. At 4K, users should opt for Medium settings to ensure a stable frame rate. The Low setting is not recommended for any resolution, as it significantly reduces visual quality without providing a proportional increase in frame rate, except for the 1080p setting where it reaches 149 FPS. Overall, the best experience is achieved by matching the settings to the resolution, with Medium being the sweet spot for 4K and High or Ultra being suitable for lower resolutions.