Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the processor and the graphics card in unusual ways, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the Intel Arc B580 produces a specific set of performance characteristics. The data shows this pairing ranks 2241 out of 2996 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the field. This is not a top-tier configuration for Flight Simulator, but the measured frames per second reveal a system that can handle the game at playable levels, provided you make the right choices in settings and resolution. The following analysis breaks down what the benchmark results mean for your build, focusing strictly on the measured data and the specifications of these two components.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this CPU and GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the measured FPS data, 1920x1080 is the most practical resolution. At 1080p with Low settings, the system averages 97 FPS, and even at Ultra settings it maintains an average of 54 FPS. At 2560x1440, the averages drop to 78 FPS on Low and 44 FPS on Ultra, while 3840x2160 only manages 58 FPS on Low and 32 FPS on Ultra, making 4K a challenging target.

Q: Which settings preset delivers the highest average frame rate?

A: The Low preset provides the highest average frame rates across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Low yields 97 FPS, which is 21 FPS higher than Medium (76 FPS) and 40 FPS higher than High (57 FPS). At 2560x1440, Low gives 78 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it gives 58 FPS. The gap between Low and the next step, Medium, is consistent, showing a significant performance jump when dropping to the lowest preset.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003, while the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807. This puts the 290K Plus only 0.2% ahead of the 285K in overall CPU benchmarks. In practical terms for this game, the performance difference between these two processors is negligible, so you should not expect a meaningful FPS change from choosing one over the other.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile, and what does that mean for this game?

A: The Intel Arc B580 sits in the 68th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23021. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, scores 23061, which is 0.2% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, which is 0.6% lower. This indicates the B580 is a mid-range performer, and the FPS data confirms it struggles with the highest settings in Flight Simulator at higher resolutions.

Q: Are there any settings where the frame rate drops below 40 FPS?

A: Yes, the Ultra preset causes sub-40 FPS averages at both 2560x1440 and 3840x2160. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 44 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 32 FPS. The High preset at 4K also dips to a 34 FPS average. Only the Medium preset at 4K stays above 40 FPS, averaging 45 FPS, with a minimum of 38 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU have enough processing power for this game's simulation aspects?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a strong performer, with a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731. Its single-core score is 7303. Flight Simulator relies heavily on single-thread performance for its simulation logic, and this CPU's single-core capabilities are robust, meaning the processor is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck in most scenarios, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU is more stressed.

CPU Role

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. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is twofold: it must handle the complex flight physics, weather simulation, and AI traffic, and it must feed the GPU with draw calls. The benchmark results show that this CPU has substantial headroom for this game. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4823 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303 indicate strong per-core performance, which is critical for the game's main simulation thread.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in most of the measured scenarios. When comparing the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at the same settings, the decline is steep, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. For example, at High settings, the average FPS drops from 57 at 1080p to 34 at 4K, a 40% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is struggling to render the higher resolution, not the CPU struggling to compute the simulation. The CPU’s 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth provide ample data throughput for the game's world-streaming mechanics, which is a common source of stutter on weaker processors.

Looking at the CPU’s benchmark scores, it is 96th percentile among all CPUs, and its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, is only 0.2% slower on average. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster, but that is a server-class chip. In a gaming context, the 290K Plus is effectively at the top of the consumer heap. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 21727 and PassMark multi-thread score of 60860 show that it can handle any background tasks without stealing resources from the game. For Flight Simulator, the data implies that the CPU will maintain consistent frame pacing as long as the GPU can keep up. At 1080p Low, where the GPU has less work, the CPU is more likely to be the ceiling, but the 97 FPS average shows it can hold a high frame rate without issue.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B580 is a mid-range graphics card based on the Xe2-HPG architecture, built on a 5 nm process. It has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 2670 MHz, and it has 2560 shading units. The GPU’s role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is to render the vast landscapes, detailed aircraft models, and complex lighting. The measured FPS data shows that the B580 is the primary bottleneck when resolution and settings are increased. The card’s 13.67 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 427.2 GTexel/s texture rate are decent for 1080p, but they struggle with the demands of 4K.

The GPU’s benchmark scores place it in the 68th percentile, with an average score of 23021. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, scores 23061, which is nearly identical. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 is 0.6% slower, and the RTX 3080 is 0.7% faster. This puts the B580 in a performance tier that is competitive with older high-end cards but not with current top-tier offerings. In Flight Simulator, this translates to playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with adjusted settings, but not at 4K Ultra.

The VRAM capacity of 12 GB is sufficient for this game, as Flight Simulator is known for using large textures. The data does not show any VRAM-related crashes or texture pop-in, so the 12 GB is not a limiting factor in the measured scenarios. The GPU’s memory bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s is adequate for the game's streaming needs. The card’s 20 ray tracing cores are present, but the measured FPS data does not include any ray tracing tests, so their impact on this game is not quantified here. The B580’s performance in the PassMark G3D test, scoring 15748, aligns with its mid-range positioning. The GPU is clearly the component that determines the maximum settings you can use at each resolution, as the FPS drops consistently as the workload increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the Intel Arc B580 delivers its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 97, which is a very smooth experience for a flight simulator. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 76 FPS, with a minimum of 64 FPS and a maximum of 87 FPS. This is still well within playable territory. High settings yield an average of 57 FPS, which is acceptable for a game where precise control is more important than high refresh rates. Ultra settings bring the average down to 54 FPS, which is the lowest at this resolution but still above the 30 FPS threshold. The data shows a clear trend: each step up in settings costs roughly 20 FPS, with Low to Medium being the largest single drop.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down predictably. Low settings average 78 FPS, which is still a good result. Medium settings average 61 FPS, with a minimum of 52 FPS and a maximum of 70 FPS. This is the sweet spot for 1440p if you want a balance between visual quality and smoothness. High settings drop the average to 46 FPS, which is on the lower end of playable for many users. Ultra settings average 44 FPS, which is marginal. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset is not efficiently using the GPU’s resources compared to High.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overstretched. Low settings average 58 FPS, which is surprisingly playable for 4K. Medium settings average 45 FPS, with a minimum of 38 FPS and a maximum of 52 FPS, which is borderline. High settings average 34 FPS, and Ultra settings average 32 FPS. Both of these are below the 60 FPS target and are only suitable for slower, more scenic flights rather than fast-paced maneuvers. The data shows that 4K is only viable with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the frame rate is not consistently smooth. The minimum FPS of 38 at Medium 4K indicates occasional dips that could cause noticeable stutter.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals how the system scales across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 97 at 1080p to 78 at 1440p, a 19.6% decrease, and then to 58 at 4K, a 40.2% decrease from 1080p. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU is not the limiting factor because the frame rate is dropping as the pixel count increases, which puts more load on the GPU’s rendering pipeline. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions.

At Medium settings, the drop is similar: 76 FPS at 1080p, 61 FPS at 1440p (a 19.7% decrease), and 45 FPS at 4K (a 40.8% decrease from 1080p). The consistent percentage drops across Low and Medium suggest that the GPU’s workload scales linearly with resolution, which is expected. At High settings, the FPS drops from 57 at 1080p to 46 at 1440p (a 19.3% decrease) and then to 34 at 4K (a 40.4% decrease). The similar relative drops indicate that the GPU is the bottleneck in all cases, and the CPU has enough headroom to feed it.

The Ultra preset shows a slightly different pattern: 54 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p (an 18.5% decrease), and 32 FPS at 4K (a 40.7% decrease). The fact that the FPS does not drop as much from 1080p to 1440p on Ultra compared to other settings suggests that at 1080p Ultra, the GPU is already near its maximum workload, and the additional pixels at 1440p do not cause a proportionally larger hit. The data strongly indicates that the Intel Arc B580 is the limiting component at all resolutions. The CPU, with its high single-core performance, is not holding back the system. The scaling is smooth and predictable, which is good for planning your settings.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080, the data supports using High settings for a good balance. The average of 57 FPS is playable, and the visual improvement over Medium is worth the 19 FPS loss. If you prefer higher frame rates for smoother camera panning, Medium settings at 76 FPS is the better choice, with a minimum of 64 FPS ensuring minimal stutter. Ultra at 54 FPS is not worth it, as the visual difference over High is minimal in this game, and the FPS is lower. Low settings at 97 FPS are overkill unless you are using a very high refresh rate monitor and want maximum smoothness.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings are the clear recommendation. The 61 FPS average, with a minimum of 52 FPS, provides a smooth experience that is still visually rich. High settings at 46 FPS are acceptable for a slower-paced game, but the risk of dips below 40 FPS is higher. Low settings at 78 FPS are a good option if you prioritize frame rate over fidelity. Ultra at 44 FPS is not recommended, as the performance hit is not justified by the small FPS difference from High.

At 3840x2160, Low settings are the only way to get a consistently playable experience, with an average of 58 FPS. Medium settings at 45 FPS are borderline, and the minimum of 38 FPS means you will see stutters during complex scenes. High and Ultra settings are not recommended, as the 34 FPS and 32 FPS averages are too low for a comfortable experience. If you want to fly at 4K, you should stick to Low settings or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p and using Medium or High. The data shows that this system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for the lowest preset. The overall combination of the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Arc B580 is a capable mid-range setup, but it is not a high-end Flight Simulator machine. The CPU is more than sufficient, while the GPU limits the maximum settings at higher resolutions.