Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its closest rival in overall CPU benchmarks?

A: The 290K Plus scores an average of 84,003 across all benchmark tests, which places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%, which scores 85,072.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance capability based on the provided data?

A: The processor delivers strong multi-threaded results, achieving 21,727 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and a Passmark multithread score of 60,860. Its Passmark physics score of 3,315 further indicates solid compute throughput for simulation workloads.

Q: How does the GTX 1070's benchmark standing compare to its nearest competing GPUs?

A: The GTX 1070 has an average benchmark score of 9,780, which is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.2% lower) and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.5% lower). It edges out the NVIDIA Tesla M10 by 0.6% (9,724) and the Tesla C2070 by 0.7% (9,716).

Q: What is the best average FPS recorded in this game for this combo, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS is 83, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 67 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 49 FPS.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values captured at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At Medium settings, the data shows a range of 32 to 44 FPS at 3840x2160, 44 to 60 FPS at 2560x1440, and 55 to 74 FPS at 1920x1080.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested system combinations for this game?

A: This CPU-GPU pairing ranks 2,482nd out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower portion of the test pool (roughly the 17th percentile of tested configurations).

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this combination at rank 2,482 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That positioning is notable because the CPU itself sits in the 96th percentile among all processors tested, while the GPU only reaches the 47th percentile among all GPUs. This stark contrast suggests the system's overall game ranking is dragged down almost entirely by the graphics card, not the processor.

Benchmark results indicate that this rank reflects a fundamental imbalance. The CPU is an elite performer—its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and single-core score of 7,303 put it among the fastest desktop chips. The GPU, however, is a legacy Pascal-generation part with a Passmark G3D score of 13,498 and an average benchmark score of 9,780, which is nearly identical to workstation cards from a different era. The 2,482nd rank out of 2,996 combos means roughly 17% of tested configurations perform worse, while 83% perform better. In a flight simulator that is known for heavy CPU simulation workloads but also demands substantial GPU rendering power, this pairing leaves significant performance on the table.

The delta between the CPU's percentile (96) and the GPU's percentile (47) is a 49-point gap. That gap is the defining characteristic of this combo: a top-tier processor harnessed to a mid-tier graphics card from 2016. The ranking data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield dramatic improvements, while upgrading the CPU would yield almost nothing in this specific game context.

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 by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a 125W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, which is substantial for simulation workloads that require quick access to large datasets.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical because the game simulates physics, aerodynamics, weather, and AI traffic, all of which are heavily single-threaded or moderately multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7,303 demonstrates exceptional per-thread performance, which directly benefits the game's main simulation loop. The multi-core score of 51,731 also helps when the game offloads tasks like terrain generation and scenery rendering to additional threads.

The Passmark data compression score of 698,346 and floating-point math score of 214,760 further indicate that this CPU can handle the complex calculations required for real-time flight modeling. The data shows that at lower resolutions and settings, where the GPU is less stressed, the CPU's strength becomes more apparent: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 83 FPS, which suggests the CPU is capable of feeding frames well above what the GPU can render at higher settings.

However, the CPU's potential is capped by the GPU's limitations. At 4K Ultra, the combo falls to 27 FPS, and at 4K High, it only reaches 29 FPS. These numbers are far below what the CPU could theoretically support. The bottleneck is clearly not the processor, as its benchmark scores relative to all CPUs (96th percentile) show it can handle far more demanding scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four settings tiers. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 83 FPS on Low, 64 FPS on Medium (with a range of 55-74), 48 FPS on High, and 46 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 37 FPS, representing a 44.6% drop from the lowest to highest settings.

At 2560x1440, performance scales down: 67 FPS on Low, 52 FPS on Medium (range 44-60), 39 FPS on High, and 37 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 30 FPS, or 44.8%. This consistency in percentage drop across resolutions suggests the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU's relative performance remains constant while the GPU's rendering load increases.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal: 49 FPS on Low, 38 FPS on Medium (range 32-44), 29 FPS on High, and 27 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Ultra drop is 22 FPS, or 44.9%. Notably, the percentage drop from Low to Ultra remains nearly identical across all three resolutions (around 44-45%), which strongly indicates that the GPU is the consistent bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the percentage drop would likely shrink at higher resolutions as the GPU becomes more saturated.

The Medium settings rows include min/max FPS data, showing that at 1080p Medium, the frame time variance is 19 FPS (55 to 74), at 1440p Medium it is 16 FPS (44 to 60), and at 4K Medium it is 12 FPS (32 to 44). The shrinking variance at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is becoming more consistently saturated, reducing frame time spikes.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is a Pascal-architecture GPU built on a 16 nm process, featuring 1,920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its FP32 performance is rated at 6.463 TFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 107.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 202.0 GTexel/s.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the detailed cockpit, terrain, aircraft models, and environmental effects. The data shows that this GPU is the primary constraint in this combo. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 27, which is below playable thresholds for most users. Even at 4K Low, the GPU only manages 49 FPS, which is acceptable but not smooth by modern standards.

The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its age and position: a Passmark G3D score of 13,498 places it in the 47th percentile among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 9,780 is nearly identical to the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803) and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832). The DirectX 12 Passmark score of 48 is particularly low, suggesting that the GPU struggles with modern API workloads, which likely impacts a DirectX 12 title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for 1080p and 1440p at most settings, but at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the memory bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s becomes a limiting factor. The data supports this: at 4K High and Ultra, the FPS drops to 29 and 27 respectively, indicating that the GPU is running out of both compute and memory bandwidth headroom.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and acceptable frame rates. At 1920x1080, Medium settings (64 FPS average, 55-74 range) provide the best balance of visual quality and smoothness. High settings (48 FPS) are playable but noticeably less fluid, while Ultra (46 FPS) offers minimal visual gain over High for a 2 FPS cost. Low settings (83 FPS) are only recommended if maximum frame rate is the priority over visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings (52 FPS average, 44-60 range) are the strongest recommendation. The 44 FPS minimum is still within acceptable range for a flight simulator, where frame pacing is less critical than in fast-paced action games. High settings (39 FPS) dip below the 40 FPS threshold that many players consider the minimum for smooth flight, and Ultra (37 FPS) further degrades the experience.

At 3840x2160, the data suggests that Low settings (49 FPS) are the only viable option for playable performance. Medium (38 FPS) is borderline, with a 32 FPS minimum that could cause noticeable stuttering during complex scenes. High (29 FPS) and Ultra (27 FPS) are not recommended for serious play, as the frame rates fall below 30 FPS consistently.

The data implies that the best experience is at 1440p with Medium settings, which offers a 52 FPS average with a reasonable 44-60 FPS range. This configuration balances the CPU's strength (which can handle the simulation load) with the GPU's rendering capabilities (which are sufficient for Medium settings at this resolution). Alternatively, 1080p with High settings (48 FPS) provides a slightly higher visual preset but with a lower frame rate, so the choice depends on whether the user prioritizes resolution or settings quality.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 83 at 1080p to 67 at 1440p (a 19.3% reduction) and then to 49 at 4K (a 26.9% reduction from 1440p, or 41.0% from 1080p). At Medium settings, the progression is 64 → 52 → 38, representing drops of 18.8% and 26.9% respectively. At High settings, the progression is 48 → 39 → 29, with drops of 18.8% and 25.6%. At Ultra settings, the progression is 46 → 37 → 27, with drops of 19.6% and 27.0%.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings tiers is striking. From 1080p to 1440p, the drop is consistently around 19-20%, and from 1440p to 4K, it is consistently around 26-27%. This pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting component, because the scaling is proportional to the pixel count increase (1080p to 1440p is a 1.78x pixel increase, and 1440p to 4K is a 2.25x increase), yet the FPS drops are much smaller than the pixel increases. This suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; rather, the CPU's simulation work is filling in the gaps, allowing the frame rate to remain higher than a purely GPU-limited scenario would predict.

The data also shows that the absolute FPS difference between settings tiers shrinks at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 37 FPS (83 vs 46). At 1440p, it is 30 FPS (67 vs 37). At 4K, it is 22 FPS (49 vs 27). This compression indicates that as the GPU becomes more saturated at higher resolutions, the impact of settings changes diminishes, confirming that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the settings-based FPS differences would remain constant or even expand at higher resolutions, because the GPU would have headroom to render more detail. Instead, the GPU is maxed out, and lowering settings can only recover a limited amount of performance.