Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX delivers a high-refresh-rate experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the data reveals a nuanced performance profile that shifts between CPU and GPU limitations depending on resolution and settings. The combo achieves a top-tier rank, yet the scaling patterns indicate that the processor is the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions, while the graphics card takes over at 4K Ultra. This analysis breaks down the measured frame rates, component roles, and comparative standing within the benchmark database.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial but not uniform across all settings, revealing a classic shift in bottleneck behavior. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 192 at 1920x1080 to 114 at 3840x2160, a reduction of 78 FPS or roughly 41%. This steep decline indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is being increasingly taxed as pixel count rises, though the 114 FPS at 4K still suggests the CPU is providing ample headroom. In contrast, at Ultra settings, the drop is from 107 FPS at 1080p to 64 FPS at 4K, a 43 FPS or 40% reduction. The absolute numbers are lower, but the percentage scaling is similar, suggesting a consistent GPU load increase.

The most telling data point is the Medium settings curve, which includes min and max FPS values. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 149 FPS with a min of 127 and max of 172. Moving to 2560x1440 Medium, the average drops to 120 FPS (min 102, max 138). At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 89 FPS (min 76, max 102). The delta between 1080p and 1440p is 29 FPS, while the delta between 1440p and 4K is 31 FPS. This near-linear scaling suggests that the RX 7900 XTX is the limiting factor across these resolutions at Medium settings, as the CPU is capable of feeding frames fast enough to maintain this progression.

However, the High settings data tells a slightly different story. At 1080p High, the average is 112 FPS, which drops to 91 FPS at 1440p and then to 67 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is 21 FPS, but the gap between 1440p and 4K is 24 FPS. This is a more pronounced drop at higher resolutions, indicating that the GPU is becoming the dominant constraint. The fact that 1080p High (112 FPS) is only 5 FPS higher than 1080p Ultra (107 FPS) suggests that the CPU is starting to cap performance at lower resolutions, preventing the GPU from fully stretching its legs.

Overall, the scaling pattern indicates that at 1080p, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the primary limiter, especially at High and Ultra settings where frame rates cluster around 107-112 FPS. As resolution increases to 4K, the RX 7900 XTX becomes the bottleneck, with frame rates dropping to 64-67 FPS at the highest settings. The 4K Low result of 114 FPS versus 1080p Low of 192 FPS shows that even a powerful GPU like this one cannot maintain high frame rates at 4K when the workload is purely graphical.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX ranks 325th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the top 10.9% of all configurations, which is a strong showing for a flight simulator known for its demanding CPU and GPU requirements. The rank of 325 out of 2996 means that approximately 2,671 other combinations performed worse, while only 324 achieved higher average frame rates in this specific game.

This rank is particularly impressive given the game's release date of 2020-08-17, as newer hardware like this combo must overcome both the game's optimization quirks and the sheer complexity of its rendering engine. The percentile placement suggests that this pairing is well-balanced for this title, though the resolution scaling data indicates that the CPU is holding back the GPU at lower resolutions, which may explain why it is not ranked even higher. Combos that pair the 7900 XTX with a stronger single-threaded CPU might achieve better scores at 1080p, but at 4K, this combo's rank should improve relative to others.

The data also shows that this combo's rank is not solely determined by raw GPU power, as the RX 7900 XTX's percentile vs all GPUs is only 64, while the CPU's percentile vs all CPUs is 96. This discrepancy suggests that the CPU is carrying more weight in this game's performance, which is consistent with Microsoft Flight Simulator's reputation for heavy single-core and multi-core usage. The high CPU percentile (96) likely contributes significantly to the combo's strong overall rank, even though the GPU's percentile is more modest.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX brings 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is crucial for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams large textures and terrain data. The 24 GB capacity ensures that the game's high-resolution assets fit entirely within VRAM at 4K Ultra, preventing stuttering from memory spills. The memory clock is listed as 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective, which is adequate for the game's demands.

The GPU's core clocks are notable: a base of 1929 MHz, a game clock of 2365 MHz, and a boost of 2498 MHz. These clocks, combined with 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, allow the card to achieve a pixel rate of 479.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 959.2 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 61.39 TFLOPS is substantial, but in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS shows that this raw compute power is not fully utilized at lower resolutions due to CPU limitations.

The GPU's measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 64 FPS, which is the lowest average across all settings in the data. This suggests that the card is working at its limit in this scenario, but the 24 GB VRAM is not the issue; rather, it is the shading and rasterization workload. At 1080p Low, the card achieves 192 FPS, indicating that it can handle the game easily when the CPU is not the bottleneck. The GPU's role becomes more pronounced at 4K, where the FPS drops from 114 at Low to 64 at Ultra, a 50 FPS swing that demonstrates the card's scaling with settings.

The GPU's production status is end-of-life, and its launch MSRP is 999 USD. The data shows that its average benchmark score is 19410, with a percentile of 64 vs all GPUs. This percentile is lower than expected for a flagship card, likely because the benchmark suite includes older or more compute-heavy tests where the card may not excel. However, in this game, the 4K High result of 67 FPS and 4K Medium of 89 FPS indicate that the card is well-suited for high-resolution flight simulation, provided the CPU can keep up.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its highest frame rates. The Low setting yields an average of 192 FPS, which is exceptional for a flight simulator. Medium settings drop to 149 FPS (min 127, max 172), while High and Ultra produce 112 FPS and 107 FPS, respectively. The small gap between High and Ultra (5 FPS) suggests that the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p, as the GPU is capable of more but is held back by the processor's single-thread performance.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show a clearer GPU influence. Low settings average 155 FPS, which is a 37 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium averages 120 FPS (min 102, max 138), High averages 91 FPS, and Ultra averages 86 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 5 FPS again, reinforcing the CPU bottleneck at these settings, but the overall reduction from 1080p indicates the GPU is taking on more work.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. Low settings average 114 FPS, which is still playable but a significant drop from 1080p. Medium averages 89 FPS (min 76, max 102), High averages 67 FPS, and Ultra averages 64 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 4K is only 3 FPS, showing that the card is near its limit. The Medium setting's min FPS of 76 at 4K is the lowest recorded minimum in the dataset, indicating potential stutters in heavy scenes.

The data shows a consistent pattern: at 1080p, the CPU caps performance around 107-112 FPS at High/Ultra, while at 4K, the GPU caps performance around 64-67 FPS at High/Ultra. The Low settings at each resolution provide the best-case scenario for the CPU, with 4K Low (114 FPS) still exceeding 1080p High (112 FPS), which confirms the GPU's raw power even at high pixel counts.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. This processor is built on a 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors and has a 36 MB shared L3 cache. The high boost clock is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for its simulation logic. The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 51731, and single-core scores 7303. Passmark single-thread scores 4823, and multi-thread scores 60860.

The CPU's percentile vs all CPUs is 96, indicating it is faster than 96% of all processors tested. This explains why the combo ranks so well in the game. The nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avg score 83807, delta 0.2%), AMD EPYC 4584PX (avg score 83090, delta 1.1%), and AMD EPYC 9135 (avg score 82980, delta 1.2%). The 290K Plus's avg benchmark score is 84003, which is slightly above the 285K but below the AMD EPYC 7F72 (avg score 85072, delta -1.3%).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p, where the frame rates plateau at 107-112 FPS across High and Ultra settings. This suggests that the processor's single-thread performance is limiting the frame rate, as the GPU could push higher if given more data. The fact that 1080p Low (192 FPS) is nearly double the 1080p High (112 FPS) indicates that the game's simulation workload at higher settings is CPU-bound, not GPU-bound. The CPU's 24 cores help with multi-threaded tasks like background scenery loading, but the simulation logic is likely single-threaded, hence the cap.

At 4K, the CPU's influence diminishes, and the GPU takes over. The 4K Low result of 114 FPS is still higher than 1080p High, showing that the CPU has headroom to feed the GPU at lower settings. However, the 4K Ultra result of 64 FPS is not CPU-limited, as the GPU's rendering workload is the bottleneck. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and dual-channel DDR5 support are sufficient for this game, as the data does not indicate any memory-related stalling.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the data, 1440p Medium (120 FPS) offers the best balance of visual quality and frame rate. 4K Low (114 FPS) is also viable, but 1440p Medium provides higher fidelity with similar performance. For maximum visual quality, 4K Ultra (64 FPS) is playable but requires accepting lower frame rates.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1080p Ultra?

A: The CPU is the bottleneck at 1080p Ultra, as evidenced by the 107 FPS average, which is nearly identical to 1080p High (112 FPS). The GPU's performance at 4K Low (114 FPS) is higher than 1080p Ultra, proving the processor limits frame rates at lower resolutions.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested combinations?

A: This combo ranks 325th out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 10.9% of all configurations. This is a strong result, driven primarily by the CPU's high percentile (96) versus the GPU's more modest percentile (64).

Q: Does the RX 7900 XTX's 24 GB VRAM help in this game?

A: The 24 GB VRAM is beneficial for 4K Ultra settings, where the game requires large memory allocations for textures and terrain. The data shows consistent frame rates at 4K without stuttering, indicating the VRAM capacity is sufficient. The memory bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s also supports smooth streaming.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 112 at 1080p to 91 at 1440p and then to 67 at 4K. This represents a 45 FPS total drop from 1080p to 4K, or about a 40% reduction, which is consistent with the GPU handling a 4x increase in pixel count.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rival?

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 (83807) and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) by 1.3%.