Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs the 24-core Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the 8 GB NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER, a combination that lands at rank 1697 out of 2996 tested combos. The measured frame rates reveal a system that is consistently playable but heavily influenced by settings and resolution, with the GPU acting as the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. The data shows a clear hierarchy where the Ultra preset demands more than this GPU can deliver at higher resolutions, while Low settings unlock significantly higher frame rates, suggesting a wide performance envelope dependent on user priorities.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows indicate that the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience across all three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers an average of 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS, providing smooth gameplay that stays well above the 60 FPS threshold. The jump from Low to Medium costs about 25 FPS at 1080p (111 down to 86), but the visual fidelity gains in a flight simulator are substantial, making this trade-off worthwhile for most users. At 2560x1440, Medium maintains a solid 70 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum, which remains fluid for a simulation title where precise control matters more than twitch reflexes.

The High preset at 1080p drops to 65 FPS, which is still acceptable but begins to show the GPU's strain, and at 1440p it falls to 52 FPS, approaching the edge of comfort. The Ultra preset is the least recommended option, as it yields only 62 FPS at 1080p and drops to 50 FPS at 1440p, with the 4K Ultra result of 37 FPS being borderline unplayable. For 4K resolution, the data strongly suggests using Low settings, which achieves 66 FPS, or Medium at 51 FPS if visual quality is prioritized over frame rate stability. The Medium preset at 4K shows a minimum of 44 FPS, which may be acceptable for slower flight phases but could feel stuttery during complex scenery loading.

The best experience per the measured rows is Medium at 1080p, offering 86 FPS average with a tight 73-99 FPS range. This combination provides headroom for the CPU to handle the simulation's complex physics and AI calculations while the GPU manages the rendering load. Users with 1440p displays should also default to Medium, as the 70 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum keeps the experience consistently smooth. The data does not support Ultra at any resolution, as the performance cost outweighs the visual benefits, particularly given the GPU's 8 GB VRAM limitation which could cause texture streaming issues in dense urban environments.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with a base clock of 1605 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. This GPU, based on the Turing architecture with 2560 shading units, achieves a PassMark G3D score of 18169, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A750 with a score of 20582 (1.5% higher) and the Intel Arc B570 at 20556 (1.3% higher), indicating the RTX 2070 SUPER sits slightly below these modern competitors in raw compute.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 8 GB VRAM capacity is likely a critical factor at higher settings, as the game streams vast amounts of terrain and photogrammetry data. The measured FPS drops from 86 at Medium 1080p to 65 at High 1080p, and further to 62 at Ultra 1080p, suggesting that beyond Medium, the GPU's memory bandwidth and capacity become limiting. The 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p Medium, but at 4K Ultra the average FPS plummets to 37, indicating the GPU is overwhelmed by the rendering workload.

The GPU's 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores are present but likely underutilized in this title, which focuses more on traditional rasterization than ray tracing. The FP32 performance of 9.062 TFLOPS provides the raw compute needed for the game's complex lighting and shadow calculations, yet the data shows that the 2070 SUPER struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K, where the pixel rate of 113.3 GPixel/s becomes a bottleneck. The gap between 4K Low (66 FPS) and 4K Medium (51 FPS) is 15 FPS, while the gap between 4K Medium and 4K High (39 FPS) is 12 FPS, showing a consistent degradation as settings increase.

The GPU's end-of-life production status and its 65th percentile ranking suggest it is a mid-range performer in current benchmarks, but the measured results show it can still deliver playable frame rates in this simulator when settings are managed appropriately. The 12 nm process node and 13,600 million transistors indicate an older design that lacks the efficiency of newer architectures, but the 8 GB memory size remains the most significant constraint, as Flight Simulator's vast world requires substantial texture storage.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic across all settings, revealing a system that is firmly GPU-limited at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 111 at 1080p to 89 at 1440p (a 22 FPS drop, or roughly 20%) and then to 66 at 4K (a 23 FPS drop from 1440p, or about 26%). This scaling pattern indicates that the RTX 2070 SUPER's compute and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, as the CPU has plenty of headroom with its 24 cores and high boost clock.

At Medium settings, the progression is 86 FPS at 1080p, 70 FPS at 1440p, and 51 FPS at 4K, representing drops of 16 FPS and 19 FPS respectively. The percentage drops are approximately 19% and 27%, showing a similar relative degradation to Low settings. However, at High settings, the numbers are 65 FPS at 1080p, 52 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 4K, with drops of 13 FPS (20%) and 13 FPS (25%). The Ultra preset shows the steepest scaling curve: 62 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 37 FPS at 4K, with the 4K result being only 60% of the 1080p frame rate.

The resolution scaling data suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p, as the frame rate drops are proportionally consistent with the increase in pixel count. From 1080p to 4K, the pixel count quadruples, but the FPS does not quarter — instead, it roughly halves, indicating that other factors like memory bandwidth and CPU overhead partially compensate. The 8 GB VRAM may also cause texture swapping at 4K Ultra, which could explain the disproportionate drop to 37 FPS, as the GPU struggles to maintain the required working set.

The consistent pattern across all settings — where 1440p retains roughly 80% of the 1080p frame rate, and 4K retains roughly 60% — indicates a well-balanced scaling behavior for this GPU. Users targeting 4K should expect to use Low settings for 66 FPS or Medium for 51 FPS, while 1440p users can comfortably use High at 52 FPS or Medium at 70 FPS. The data implies that the CPU is not the limiting factor in resolution scaling, as the Core Ultra 9 290K's performance remains constant while the GPU workload increases.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the four settings produce a clear ladder of performance. Low settings deliver the highest average at 111 FPS, followed by Medium at 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 and maximum of 99. High settings drop to 65 FPS, and Ultra sits at 62 FPS, showing only a 3 FPS difference between High and Ultra. The medium preset's minimum of 73 FPS ensures that even in dense scenarios, the frame rate stays above 60, making it the safest choice for consistent gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the pattern repeats with lower absolute numbers. Low achieves 89 FPS, Medium delivers 70 FPS (minimum 59, maximum 80), High drops to 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS, suggesting that Ultra's additional effects are not heavily taxing at this resolution, but the overall performance is below the 1080p results by roughly 20-25%.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become apparent. Low settings manage 66 FPS, Medium drops to 51 FPS (minimum 44, maximum 59), High falls to 39 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 37 FPS. The minimum FPS of 44 at Medium 4K indicates that even this moderate preset can experience noticeable dips, while the 37 FPS Ultra result is below the threshold for smooth simulation play. The data shows that 4K gaming with this GPU requires sacrificing settings, with Low providing the only consistently smooth experience.

The measured data reveals that the RTX 2070 SUPER can handle 1080p at Medium with excellent results (86 FPS) and even High at 65 FPS, but the step to 1440p pushes the GPU to its limits at anything above Medium. The 4K results are marginal at best, with only Low settings achieving a playable frame rate. These numbers indicate that users should prioritize resolution over settings on this GPU, or vice versa, depending on their display capabilities and performance preferences.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and RTX 2070 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 1697 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This ranking reflects the significant mismatch between the high-end CPU and the mid-range GPU, as the CPU's performance is far above what the GPU can utilize in this game. The CPU alone ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile, creating a bottleneck that drags the overall combo ranking down.

The CPU's nearest rivals in general benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% higher average score) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% higher), showing that the 290K Plus is essentially at the top of the consumer heap. The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (1% lower) and the RTX 3070 Mobile (1.2% lower), indicating that the 2070 SUPER is slightly below the performance of a modern mobile chip. This disparity explains why the combo ranks at 1697 — the CPU is capable of feeding much faster GPUs, but the 2070 SUPER holds the system back.

The ranking of 1697 out of 2996 means that roughly 57% of tested combos outperform this configuration, which is a surprisingly low position given the CPU's strength. This suggests that most tested combos pair the high-end CPU with a more capable GPU, or that the game is particularly sensitive to GPU performance. For users considering this combo, the data implies that the CPU investment is wasted in this specific game unless paired with a faster GPU, as the measured FPS is entirely GPU-limited.

The combo's rank is likely influenced by the 4K results, where the GPU struggles to reach 40 FPS on higher settings. At 1080p, the combo performs admirably, but the database ranking may weight higher resolutions more heavily. Users with 1080p displays would find this combo perfectly adequate, ranking much higher in practice, while 4K users would see the system underperform relative to its potential.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provides 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, built on a 3 nm process from TSMC. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731 and single-core score of 7303 place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, demonstrating exceptional compute capability. The CPU's 36 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth ensure it can feed data to the GPU without becoming a bottleneck.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the complex flight physics, AI traffic, and weather systems, which are highly single-threaded in nature. The single-core performance of 7303 in Cinebench R23 is crucial for this workload, and the data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in any of the measured FPS results. The fact that frame rates drop significantly with resolution increases, while the CPU's load remains constant, confirms that the GPU is the primary constraint.

The CPU's 24 threads are more than sufficient for Flight Simulator's multi-threaded rendering pipeline, and the PassMark multi-thread score of 60860 indicates massive parallel processing capability. However, the game likely does not utilize all 24 threads effectively, with single-core performance being the more critical metric. The boost clock of 5.80 GHz provides the high frequency needed for simulation updates, and the data shows no CPU-related stutters or minimum FPS drops that would indicate processing bottlenecks.

The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 0.2% higher in average benchmarks, making these two chips essentially identical in performance. The 290K Plus's 24 cores and 24 threads (no hyperthreading) are unusual, but this design choice allows for higher boost clocks and lower latency. In this game, the CPU's role is to maintain consistent frame pacing, which it does admirably, as evidenced by the minimum FPS values at Medium settings (73 FPS at 1080p, 59 FPS at 1440p, 44 FPS at 4K) that closely track the averages.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to achieve 60+ FPS?

A: The data shows that 1080p at Medium (86 FPS) and Low (111 FPS) settings both exceed 60 FPS, while 1440p only achieves 60+ FPS at Low (89 FPS). At 4K, only Low settings (66 FPS) reach above 60 FPS, with Medium falling to 51 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 96th percentile with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51731, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile with a PassMark G3D score of 18169. The measured FPS drops proportionally with resolution increases, indicating GPU limitation.

Q: How does the RTX 2070 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The GPU's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A750 (1.5% higher average score) and the Intel Arc B570 (1.3% higher), while the RTX 3070 Mobile is 1.2% lower. This places the 2070 SUPER slightly below modern mid-range GPUs in raw compute, though its 8 GB VRAM is a limiting factor.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 50 FPS at 2560x1440 Ultra, with no minimum FPS recorded. This is below the 60 FPS threshold, so users should consider Medium (70 FPS) or High (52 FPS) for smoother gameplay.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM cause issues at 4K?

A: The data suggests yes, as the 4K Ultra average of 37 FPS is disproportionately low compared to the 1080p Ultra of 62 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 44 FPS also indicates stuttering, likely due to VRAM swapping, though this is not explicitly confirmed by the data.

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

A: The combo ranks 1697 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the 57th percentile. This is lower than expected given the CPU's high performance, reflecting the GPU's mid-range position and its inability to fully utilize the CPU's capabilities.