Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a specific, measurable performance profile. The data indicates that this pairing is heavily constrained by the graphics card, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. The benchmark results show a system that can deliver playable frame rates only when settings are reduced, with the GPU acting as the definitive bottleneck across all tested configurations. This analysis breaks down the measured performance to provide clear guidance on how to best configure the game for this hardware combination.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data makes the optimal settings strategy clear: prioritize the Low preset to achieve playable frame rates, especially at higher resolutions. The performance deltas between settings are substantial, and the system's limitations are exposed at Medium and above. For a smooth experience, Low is the only preset that consistently pushes frame rates into a comfortable range across all resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 78 FPS, the highest score recorded for this combo. This is the only configuration that approaches high-refresh-rate territory. The Medium preset at this resolution yields 60 FPS average, which is playable but noticeably lower. The High preset drops to 45 FPS, and Ultra falls to 43 FPS. While 60 FPS at Medium is technically achievable, the drop from Low to Medium represents a 23% performance hit, making Low the safer choice for maintaining a consistent frame rate.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset remains the only viable option for smooth gameplay, producing an average of 63 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 49 FPS, and High falls to 37 FPS. The Ultra preset manages only 35 FPS. The data shows that at 1440p, even the Low preset is only 19% slower than its 1080p counterpart, suggesting the GPU is the primary limiter rather than the CPU. For a playable experience, Low is recommended at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes critical. The Low preset is the only setting that exceeds 30 FPS, with an average of 46 FPS. The Medium preset produces 36 FPS, while High and Ultra drop to 27 and 26 FPS respectively. None of these higher presets provide a smooth experience. The data indicates that 4K gaming is only marginally possible with this combination, and strictly at the Low preset. For the best experience per the measured rows, the recommendation is to use the Low preset at all resolutions, with the understanding that 1080p offers the most headroom.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the decisive factor in this system's performance. With its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, the card provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The benchmark scores reflect a mid-range performer: the GPU's average benchmark score is 12986, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.4% faster), AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.4% faster), and AMD Radeon 740M (0.9% faster), indicating it sits in a well-contested performance tier.

The card's clock speeds—a base of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz—are modest by current standards, but the real constraint is the memory capacity and bandwidth. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: the GPU struggles as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of memory bandwidth and capacity limitations. The 6 GB frame buffer is likely insufficient for the high-resolution textures and complex geometry this game demands, particularly at 4K.

The GPU's architectural characteristics reinforce this analysis. With 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units, the GTX 1660 SUPER offers a raw compute capability of 5.027 TFLOPS FP32. The pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s are adequate for 1080p but become strained at higher resolutions. The lack of dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores means the card relies entirely on traditional rasterization, which is a disadvantage in a game like Flight Simulator that uses advanced rendering techniques.

The percentile ranking of 53rd among all GPUs is telling. This is not a high-end card, and the data shows it cannot sustain high frame rates in this demanding title. The performance drop from 1080p Low (78 FPS) to 4K Low (46 FPS) represents a 41% decrease, while the drop from 1080p Ultra (43 FPS) to 4K Ultra (26 FPS) is 40%. This consistent ~40% penalty across settings strongly indicates that the GPU's memory subsystem is the limiting factor, not the compute units.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a high-end processor that provides ample compute headroom for this pairing. With 24 cores and 24 threads, it offers substantial multi-threaded performance. The CPU's benchmark results are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and a single-core score of 7303. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 60860 and single-thread score of 4823 place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, indicating top-tier performance.

The CPU's clock speeds—3.70 GHz base and 5.80 GHz boost—are strong for a desktop processor. This is reflected in its nearest rivals: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is only 0.2% faster, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% slower. This places the 290K Plus at the very top of consumer desktop performance. However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU power is not the bottleneck.

The measured FPS data shows that the system's performance is almost entirely GPU-limited. At 1080p, the difference between Low (78 FPS) and Ultra (43 FPS) is 45%, which is far more than what CPU scaling alone would produce. The CPU's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are more than sufficient to feed the GPU's needs. The processor's high single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R20 single-core score of 3067, is particularly relevant for Flight Simulator, which has a reputation for being single-thread sensitive.

The data suggests that the CPU is effectively idle relative to the GPU's workload. At 4K, the frame rates drop to 26-46 FPS depending on settings, but the CPU is unlikely to be the cause. The 24-core design ensures that even the most demanding simulation logic runs smoothly, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations. This is a classic case of a high-end CPU paired with a mid-range GPU, where the former's performance is masked by the latter's constraints. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking stands in stark contrast to the GPU's 53rd percentile, highlighting the significant performance disparity within this combo.

How This Combo Ranks

The combined system ranks 2546th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 15% of all configurations. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's mid-range performance dragging down the CPU's top-tier capability. The data shows that this is a severely unbalanced pairing for this specific game.

The ranking reflects the game's heavy reliance on GPU performance. A combo ranking in the 2546th position indicates that the vast majority of tested systems outperform this setup in Flight Simulator. This is not a reflection of the CPU's capability—the 290K Plus is a top-tier processor—but rather the GTX 1660 SUPER's inability to keep up with the game's rendering demands. The combo's position is likely influenced by the many systems using higher-end GPUs, even if paired with weaker CPUs.

The data suggests that if a user were to upgrade only one component, the GPU would be the clear choice. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking means it is unlikely to be the limiting factor in any scenario, while the GPU's 53rd percentile ranking leaves significant room for improvement. The combo's low rank confirms the GPU's role as the primary constraint, and it indicates that this system is best suited for lower resolutions and settings, as confirmed by the measured FPS data.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average FPS of 78 at 1920x1080. The Medium preset provides 60 FPS, but Low offers significantly more headroom for consistent performance.

Q: Is this combo capable of 4K gaming?

A: Yes, but only marginally. At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves an average of 46 FPS, while Medium drops to 36 FPS. High and Ultra settings fall below 30 FPS, making them unplayable.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is 0.2% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in average benchmark score, but 1.3% slower than the AMD EPYC 7F72. It ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12986. It is 0.4% faster than the AMD Radeon RX 580.

Q: Why is the combo rank so low despite having a powerful CPU?

A: The combo ranks 2546th out of 2996 due to the GPU's mid-range performance. The GTX 1660 SUPER cannot provide sufficient frame rates in Flight Simulator, making it the primary bottleneck.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low averages 63 FPS, while Ultra averages 35 FPS. This represents a 44% performance drop, highlighting the GPU's limitations at higher settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data presents the exact average FPS, and where available, minimum and maximum FPS, for each tested resolution and settings combination.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average 78 FPS
• Medium: Average 60 FPS, Minimum 51 FPS, Maximum 69 FPS
• High: Average 45 FPS
• Ultra: Average 43 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: Average 63 FPS
• Medium: Average 49 FPS, Minimum 41 FPS, Maximum 56 FPS
• High: Average 37 FPS
• Ultra: Average 35 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: Average 46 FPS
• Medium: Average 36 FPS, Minimum 31 FPS, Maximum 41 FPS
• High: Average 27 FPS
• Ultra: Average 26 FPS

The data reveals a consistent pattern: every step up in resolution or settings results in a significant FPS drop. The most playable configurations are at 1080p Low (78 FPS) and 1440p Low (63 FPS). The 4K data shows that even the Low preset (46 FPS) is barely above the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimum for playability. The Medium preset at each resolution shows the only measured minimum and maximum values, ranging from 31 to 41 FPS at 4K, 41 to 56 FPS at 1440p, and 51 to 69 FPS at 1080p. This suggests that frame pacing is relatively stable at Medium, but the average FPS at higher resolutions remains too low for a smooth experience.