Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents one of the most demanding rendering workloads in the benchmark database, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 produces a clear, data-driven picture of where the bottlenecks lie. The measured results across three resolutions and four quality presets reveal a system that is consistently capable of playable frame rates, but the scaling behavior indicates that the graphics card is the primary limiting factor as resolution increases. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, contextualizes the combo's ranking against 2,996 other tested combinations, and provides specific guidance on settings and component roles based solely on the provided data.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is decisive in identifying the system's limiting component. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 158 FPS, which drops to 127 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 94 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 40.5% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The scaling pattern is even more pronounced at Ultra settings, where the average FPS falls from 88 at 1080p to 71 at 1440p and finally to 52 at 4K — a 40.9% drop across the same resolution span.

The data shows that the performance penalty for moving from 1440p to 4K is substantial across all presets. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 99 at 2560x1440 to 73 at 3840x2160, a 26.3% decrease. At High settings, the drop is from 74 to 55 FPS, a 25.7% reduction. These consistent double-digit percentage losses with each resolution step strongly suggest that the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are being saturated. The RTX 3080's 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed heavily by the higher pixel counts, particularly at 4K.

The fact that the Low preset at 1080p exceeds 158 FPS while Ultra at the same resolution stays below 90 FPS indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately at lower graphical loads. However, the severe scaling at 4K — where even Low settings only reach 94 FPS — points to the GPU becoming the dominant constraint. The pattern is classic: resolution scaling is steep, and the component hitting its ceiling is the graphics card, not the processor. The Ultra 9 290K's 24 cores and 24 threads, with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, provide sufficient headroom to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck until the GPU is fully maxed out.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 holds a rank of 786 out of 2,996 total combinations. This places the combo in the top 26.2% of all tested systems, which is a solid position given the game's notorious demand on both CPU and GPU resources. The percentile ranking of the CPU itself is 96th among all tested processors, while the GPU sits at the 68th percentile among all graphics cards, indicating that the processor is the stronger component of the pairing.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 84,003 places it just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which scores 83,807. The delta to the AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1%, and the AMD EPYC 9135 trails by 1.2%. Interestingly, the AMD EPYC 7F72 actually scores higher by 1.3%, with an average of 85,072. This means the Ultra 9 290K Plus is not the absolute fastest in its immediate rival group, but the differences are marginal — well within a few percentage points. The GPU's average benchmark score of 23,172 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with the NVIDIA P106-100, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and AMD Radeon R9 M290X all within 0.4% of each other.

Given the combo's rank of 786, the data shows that while the CPU is in the top 4% of all processors, the GPU's 68th percentile ranking drags the overall combo down relative to systems with more powerful graphics cards. The rank suggests that many combos with higher-end GPUs outperform this setup, even if their CPUs are weaker. This is consistent with the resolution scaling analysis: the RTX 3080 is the limiting factor, and its mid-tier percentile relative to the CPU's top-tier standing explains why the combo ranks lower than the CPU's individual percentile might suggest.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings for different resolution targets. For a smooth 60 FPS experience, the 3840x2160 resolution offers few viable options: only the Low preset achieves an average of 94 FPS, while Medium drops to 73 FPS and High falls to 55 FPS. Ultra at 4K is the worst performer, averaging just 52 FPS. Therefore, at 4K, the Low preset is the only one that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS, and Medium is borderline acceptable at 73 FPS for those willing to accept lower frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the options expand significantly. The Low preset delivers 127 FPS, Medium hits 99 FPS, and High reaches 74 FPS — all above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 1440p averages 71 FPS, which is also playable but barely. For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance at 1440p, the High preset at 74 FPS is recommended, as it provides a substantial quality boost over Medium while still maintaining a frame rate well above 60. The Medium preset's minimum FPS of 84 at 1440p, with a maximum of 114, shows good frame time consistency.

At 1920x1080, the system has ample headroom. Ultra averages 88 FPS, High reaches 92 FPS, Medium hits 123 FPS, and Low peaks at 158 FPS. Here, the Ultra preset is clearly the best choice for visual quality, as it stays above 85 FPS average. The data shows that the CPU is strong enough to support high settings at 1080p without compromising frame rates. The Medium preset at 1080p shows a minimum of 104 FPS and a maximum of 141 FPS, indicating stable performance. For users prioritizing maximum visual fidelity, Ultra at 1080p is the recommended preset, while those on 1440p displays should choose High.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 158, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next highest is 127 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 123 FPS at 1080p with Medium settings.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K resolution with Ultra settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 52, which is below the standard 60 FPS target. Even the High preset at 4K only reaches 55 FPS, so 4K gaming with this setup requires the Medium preset (73 FPS) or, more safely, the Low preset (94 FPS).

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's 83,807. It is 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX and 1.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135, but it trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%, which scores 85,072.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 786th out of 2,996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 26.2% of all systems in the database.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions. The CPU is at the 96th percentile while the GPU is at the 68th percentile. The steep FPS drops from 1080p to 4K across all settings confirm that the RTX 3080 is the primary bottleneck.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings?

A: The only presets with recorded minimum FPS are the Medium settings. At 1920x1080, the minimum is 104 FPS. At 2560x1440, it is 84 FPS. At 3840x2160, the minimum is 62 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 plays a central role in determining the system's performance ceiling in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's specifications from the data pack include 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s. The core clocks are 1440 MHz base and 1710 MHz boost, with the memory running at 1188 MHz, translating to 19 Gbps effective. These specifications are directly relevant to the measured results, as the game's high-resolution textures and complex scenery demand substantial memory bandwidth and capacity.

The RTX 3080's percentile rank of 68 among all GPUs indicates it is a mid-to-upper-tier card, but not a flagship. Its average benchmark score of 23,172 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with the NVIDIA P106-100 scoring 23,249 (0.3% higher), and AMD cards like the Radeon Pro Vega 16 and RX 6600M within 0.4%. This suggests that the RTX 3080 is not an outlier in terms of raw compute performance, but its 10 GB memory capacity may be a limiting factor at 4K in a demanding sim like Flight Simulator.

The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the GPU is unable to maintain 60 FPS, averaging just 52 FPS. Even at 4K High, it only achieves 55 FPS. This indicates that the 10 GB VRAM buffer is likely being filled, and the 760.3 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient to handle the texture streaming demands at 3840x2160. The GPU's 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, while present, do not appear to be leveraged effectively for this workload, as the game's performance scales more with raw pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The dual-slot design and 320 W TDP, with a suggested 700 W PSU, are consistent with a high-power card that is being pushed to its limits by this game's rendering requirements.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications explain why the system is not CPU-bound in most scenarios. The processor features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It uses 3 nm process technology from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with a theoretical bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 51,731 and a single-core score of 7,303. The PassMark multithread score is 60,860, and the single-thread score is 4,823. These figures place the CPU at the 96th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 84,003. The nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, is only 0.2% behind, and the AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% ahead, showing that this CPU is at the top of its class.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and draw calls. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system achieves 158 FPS, which is a strong indicator that the CPU can feed the GPU effectively at lower resolutions. However, as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU's performance headroom is not fully utilized. The 24 cores and 36 MB of L3 cache are more than sufficient for the game's threading model, and the 5.80 GHz boost clock provides excellent single-threaded performance for the main simulation thread. The CPU's 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth also ensures that data can be fed to the GPU without significant delays, although the GPU's 760.3 GB/s bandwidth is the more critical path.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured FPS data, organized by resolution and settings, provides a comprehensive view of the combo's performance. At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low averages 94 FPS, Medium averages 73 FPS with a minimum of 62 and maximum of 84, High averages 55 FPS, and Ultra averages 52 FPS. The transition from Medium to High at 4K represents an 18 FPS drop, which is a significant loss for only a modest graphical improvement.

At 2560x1440, the system shows stronger performance: Low averages 127 FPS, Medium averages 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 114, High averages 74 FPS, and Ultra averages 71 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 3 FPS, making Ultra a viable option for those seeking maximum quality. The Medium preset's minimum of 84 FPS ensures smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes.

At 1920x1080, the performance is excellent across all settings: Low averages 158 FPS, Medium averages 123 FPS with a minimum of 104 and maximum of 141, High averages 92 FPS, and Ultra averages 88 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra at 1080p is only 4 FPS, which is negligible. The Medium preset's minimum of 104 FPS indicates that even in the most demanding moments, the system stays well above 100 FPS.

The data shows a clear pattern: the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution decreases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (158 FPS) and Ultra (88 FPS) is 70 FPS, while at 4K, the difference is just 42 FPS (94 vs 52). This further confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the settings-based performance scaling becomes less pronounced when the GPU is already saturated. For the best experience, users should target 1440p with High or Ultra settings, or 1080p with Ultra, to balance visual fidelity with frame rate.