Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 produces a range of frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator that spans from 40 FPS at 4K Ultra to 119 FPS at 1080p Low. This is a dataset measured at three resolutions and four visual presets, and the results demonstrate a system where the CPU’s raw compute headroom is far larger than the GPU’s ability to move pixels at high resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1920x1080 up to 3840x2160 is consistent with a workload that shifts from a CPU-satisfied state to a GPU-limited one. At the High preset, the average FPS descends 70 → 56 → 40 when stepping through 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. The drop is not uniform across all presets. In Low, the numbers are 119 at 1080p, 96 at 1440, and 71 at 4K. Medium yields 93, 75, and 55. Ultra sits at 66, 54, and 40.

What this pattern shows is a near-linear response to resolution scaling. The difference between the highest and lowest resolutions is roughly the same in each preset: 70 frames (119–49) in Low, 38 frames (93–55) in Medium, 30 frames (70–40) in High, and 26 frames (66–40) in Ultra. That the falloff is strongly correlated with loading the render pipeline is a clear sign the GPU limits the output. The fact that the system can achieve 119 FPS at 1080p Low – a number that exceeds decent refresh‑rate targets – while the same rig only reaches 40 FPS at 4K Ultra, points squarely to the RTX 4060 being the constraint at higher pixel counts.

It is also telling that the gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution is not enormous. At 1080p, the band from 119 to 66 FPS is about 53 FPS; at 1440p it’s 96 to 54; at 4K it’s 71 to 40. The flight sim engine’s thread utilization is high enough to keep the CPU busy at all settings, but the GPU’s 8 GB return does not give it enough texture headroom to deliver playable Ultra numbers beyond 1440p.

CPU Role

The Core Ultra 9 290K is armed with 24 cores and 24 threads, running at a 3.70 GHz base and a 5.80 GHz boost. Its three‑level cache structure provides 36 MB of shared L3, while each core carries its own 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2. This is a top‑tier part, confirmed by its placement in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the benchmark suite, where it averages 84,003 points across 18 different workload tests.

Cinebench scores confirm the CPU’s single‑thread capability is high – 7,303 in the R23 single‑thread test, and 51,731 multi. These numbers, combined with a 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth through a dual‑channel DDR5 configuration, mean that the CPU can feed the RTX 4060 without bottlenecking at frame rates up to 120 FPS when the visual load is low. The 119 FPS result at 1080p Low demonstrates this: the game delivers more than enough frames for a 120‑Hz display, indicating the CPU is not the primary limiter in this combination.

In a simulator like Flight, which uses a mix of terrain, weather, and traffic threads, the CPU’s 24 threads are a comfortable match. The data from this test shows the frame rate stays consistent across presets at the same resolution; i.e., going from Ultra to Low only increases FPS by 26–50%. This indicates the CPU is not being saturated by any particular setting. The 290K’s multi‑core benchmark of 21,727 in Cinebench R20 further supports it is a high‑performance desktop part, though for gaming the single‑core result matters most.

GPU Role

The RTX 4060 is a very different story. It sits in only the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,639. Its base clock is 1830 MHz and boost goes to 2460 MHz. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128‑bit bus, delivering a total of 272.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The shader complement is 3072 units, 96 TMUs and 24 Tensor cores, but the most relevant for flight sim is the raw raster performance.

At 4K, even at Low the average FPS is 71 – that is a decent figure, but not smooth enough for an immersive sim. Medium at 4K drops to 55, and Ultra falls to 40. The fact that the 4K Ultra frame rate is only 2 FPS lower than High (40 vs 42) suggests that the high‑resolution textures and effects merely tip the needle; the core pixel throughput is not there.

Given that the GPU’s own benchmark percentile is 42, its position as the limiting component in the tested system is consistent. The 8 GB memory capacity is also a factor: at 4K with High and Ultra presets, large texture caches may spill into lower‑performance memory, but the measured averages show a 71→55→42→40 slide. Nonetheless, the GPU does produce good frame rates at 1080p – 70 FPS on High and 93 on Medium, which are playable for most. Its limited memory bandwidth (272 GB/s) is the hindrance at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists every measured average FPS, along with min/max where recorded. All values are from the data set.

| Resolution | Preset | Average FPS | Minimum FPS | Maximum FPS |

|------------|--------|------------:|------------:|------------:|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 119 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 93 | 79 | 107 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 70 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 66 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 96 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 75 | 64 | 86 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 56 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 54 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 71 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 55 | 47 | 64 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 42 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 40 | – | – |

The minimum–maximum spread for Medium settings shows the volatility. At 1080p Medium, the frame time varies between 79 and 107 FPS – a 28 FPS swing. At 1440p Medium the spread is 64 to 86 (22 FPS), while at 4K it is 47 to 64 (17 FPS). The lack of a specific minimum or maximum for the other presets means we cannot compare stability, but the average values give a clear ladder: pushing from Medium to High loses about 26–32% at the same resolution, and High to Ultra another 7–13%.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database, this particular CPU‑GPU combination holds position 1,978 out of 3,714 combos. That places it in the middle of the pack, squarely at the 53rd percentile. To put that into context, the CPU alone sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the 42nd of all GPUs. So the ranking is exactly between those extremes, reflecting the system’s overall balance.

The CPU’s nearest rivals are quite close: the Intel Core Ultra 285K is only 0.2% behind in average benchmark score, and the AMD EPYC 4584PX trails by 1.1%. A noteworthy observation is that the 290K average 84,003 while the EPYC 9135 reaches 82,980 – a 1.2% gap. The more powerful EPYC 7F72 leads by 1.3%. These margins show the 290K is a high‑performance chip, but its ranking in the combined system is dragged down because the RTX 4060 remains a mid‑range GPU. If the same CPU were paired with a stronger graphics card, the combo could easily jump into the top 20% of recorded setups. As it stands, the 1,978 result is what you would expect when a 96th‑percentile CPU meets a 42nd‑percentile GPU in a visualization‑heavy title.

Settings Recommendations

The goal for a smooth simulator experience, meaning an average above 60 FPS with minimums not dipping below the swap chain target, is achieved at several points. The most clearly stable preset is 1920x1080 Medium, which delivers 93 average FPS with a 79–107 FPS window. That yields consistent headroom for any flight sequence, and the Medium visuals are still detailed enough for a 1080p monitor.

If the user prefers a higher pixel density, the 2560x1440 Medium setting averages 75 FPS with a minimum of 64. This keeps the 60 FPS target comfortably. For those wanting the Ultra visual suite, the leap to 1440p Ultra drops to a 54 FPS average and the min FPS not recorded. Since that is below 60, Ultra at 1440p will feel slightly less fluid. The 1080p Ultra at 66 FPS is the only Ultra preset that reaches 60+, but its margin is thin.

At 4K, Low is the only preset that achieves 60 FPS, hitting 71 on average. Medium at 4K gives 55 FPS, which is about playable but with drops into the 50s. High and Ultra at 4K sit at 42 and 40, so they are not smooth for an action‑heavy simulator. The 2 paragraphs that warrants a recommendation: For most users, 2560x1440 Medium offers the best trade – it stays above 64 FPS minimum across the run and gives a crisp image. The 1080p Medium is faster (93 FPS) but lower resolution, while 4K Low is a genuine 60+ but sacrifices most detail.

The pattern across the measuring array is linear, so if you have a G‑sync/Freesync display upward of 72 Hz, the 1440p Medium setting is the one to select. If you have a 120‑Hz screen at 1080p, then playing at Medium or High (70 FPS) is preferable. For a 4K panel, 4K Low at 71 FPS is the only true answer.

In all cases, the limiting variable is the GPU; the CPU has plenty of headroom as proven by its benchmark positions. The 290K will not bottle you at 60 FPS in any of the tested settings. This is a system that clearly leans on the 4060, and pushing the preset slider lower is the primary lever to reclaim smoothness.