Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER reveals a system that scales predictably across resolutions, with the GPU becoming the dominant constraint at 4K while the CPU's strong single-thread performance keeps 1080p and 1440p framerates exceptionally high. The measured FPS rows span three resolutions and four settings presets, offering a complete picture of how this pairing behaves in a simulation title that is known for pushing both processor and graphics hardware. The combo ranks 425th out of 2,996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 14.2% of all pairings in the database for this game — a solid position that reflects balanced hardware rather than an extreme outlier in either direction.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lives in this system. At Low settings, the average framerate falls from 183 FPS at 1920x1080 to 148 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 19.1% reduction — and then to 109 FPS at 3840x2160, which is a further 26.4% drop from the 1440p figure. The total scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is a 40.4% performance loss, which is substantial but not catastrophic, suggesting that even at the lowest preset, the GPU is starting to feel the pixel-count pressure. At Medium settings, the progression is 143 FPS at 1080p, 115 FPS at 1440p, and 85 FPS at 4K — the step from 1440p to 4K costs 26.1% performance, nearly identical to the Low preset's drop. High settings show 107 FPS at 1080p, 86 FPS at 1440p, and 64 FPS at 4K, with the 4K step costing 25.6%. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 102 FPS at 1080p, 82 FPS at 1440p, and 61 FPS at 4K, with a 25.6% reduction between 1440p and 4K.

The consistency of the 4K penalty across all four settings presets — hovering around 25-26% — is a strong indicator that the limiting component at 4K is the GPU's raw pixel throughput rather than any CPU-side constraint. The RTX 4070 SUPER's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed at 4K, and the data shows the card simply cannot maintain the same headroom it enjoys at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 81 FPS (183 vs. 102), which is a 44.3% performance spread. At 4K, that same Low-to-Ultra spread narrows to 48 FPS (109 vs. 61), a 44.0% difference — nearly the same percentage, but the absolute numbers are much lower. This tells us that the GPU is equally stressed by settings changes at every resolution, but the baseline pixel load at 4K pushes the whole curve downward. The data implies that at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting, while 4K exposes the GPU as the primary constraint — a classic sign of a well-balanced pairing that tips toward GPU-bound at the highest resolution.

GPU Role

The RTX 4070 SUPER's specifications in the FACT PACK provide context for its measured behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU has a base clock of 1980 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz, with 7,168 shading units and 224 tensor cores — a configuration that places it in the upper tier of the GeForce 40-series but not at the flagship level. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but becomes a limiting factor at 4K in demanding titles like this flight simulator. The GPU's percentile rank of 83 among all GPUs in the database, combined with an average benchmark score of 43,223, places it in the upper quartile of graphics hardware. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (deltaPct -0.1), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (deltaPct -0.1), and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (deltaPct -0.2) — all within 0.2% of its average score, indicating the 4070 SUPER is tightly clustered with these cards in synthetic benchmarks.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's VRAM capacity being tested at 4K Ultra, where the average framerate drops to 61 FPS. The 12 GB memory size is not explicitly stated as a bottleneck in the data, but the steep decline from 4K Medium (85 FPS) to 4K Ultra (61 FPS) — a 28.2% drop — suggests that the Ultra preset is pushing the memory subsystem harder, likely due to higher texture detail and draw distances. The GPU's pixel rate of 198.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 554.4 GTexel/s are the raw throughput figures that determine how quickly it can fill pixels and sample textures; at 4K, the pixel fill rate becomes the gating factor, as evidenced by the consistent 25-26% FPS penalty across all settings when moving from 1440p to 4K. The GPU's FP32 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS is the compute ceiling, but in a flight simulator where the rendering workload is heavily geometry- and texture-bound, the memory bandwidth and pixel throughput are more relevant to the observed results. The data suggests the GPU is well-matched to 1080p and 1440p gaming, but 4K Ultra pushes it to the edge of its capability, with the 61 FPS average being playable but leaving little headroom for demanding weather or scenery add-ons.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 425 out of 2,996 tested combinations places this pairing in the 85.8th percentile of all systems tested in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a strong showing, but not an elite one — the top 14.2% of combinations outperform it, which makes sense given that the RTX 4070 SUPER is a mid-high-tier GPU rather than a flagship, and the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, while powerful, is not the absolute fastest CPU in the database. The CPU's percentile rank of 96 among all processors and the GPU's percentile rank of 83 combine to produce a system that is greater than the sum of its parts in this game — the CPU's strength compensates for the GPU's mid-tier position, particularly at lower resolutions where the processor can drive higher framerates.

The rank data becomes more revealing when compared to the CPU's nearest rivals. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has an average benchmark score of 83,807, which is only 0.2% lower than the 290K Plus's 84,003 — a negligible difference. Similarly, the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090, deltaPct 1.1) and AMD EPYC 9135 (82,980, deltaPct 1.2) are within 1.2% of the 290K Plus's average score. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85,072, which is 1.3% higher. This tight clustering means the CPU choice is unlikely to be the differentiator in game performance — the 290K Plus's edge over the 285K is so small that it would not meaningfully change the FPS results. The GPU's nearest rivals tell a similar story: the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262, deltaPct -0.1), RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, deltaPct -0.1), and Quadro M6000 (43,301, deltaPct -0.2) are all within 0.2% of the 4070 SUPER's average score of 43,223. This suggests that the combo rank is determined more by the overall balance of the pairing than by any single component's synthetic benchmark score. The 425th rank out of 2,996 is a percentile position that indicates the system will handle Microsoft Flight Simulator well at most settings, but users chasing the absolute highest 4K Ultra framerates would need a more powerful GPU to climb significantly higher in the rankings.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average framerate is 183 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 148 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 143 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: Can this system maintain 60+ FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 61 FPS, which is just barely above the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K High settings, the average rises to 64 FPS, and at 4K Medium it reaches 85 FPS, so there is headroom if Ultra is too demanding.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance compare to its multi-thread performance in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 7,303 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 51,731 in multi-core, showing a roughly 7.1x scaling factor. In PassMark, the single-thread score is 4,823 and the multithread score is 60,860, which is a 12.6x scaling factor — the difference reflects the 24 cores and 24 threads working in parallel.

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

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 148 FPS average, while Ultra produces 82 FPS — a difference of 66 FPS, which is a 44.6% performance drop when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU becomes more influential at 1080p, as the GPU has enough headroom at that resolution to push framerates much higher. The 183 FPS at 1080p Low versus 109 FPS at 4K Low indicates that at lower resolutions, the CPU's 5.80 GHz boost clock and strong single-thread performance (7,303 Cinebench R23 single-core) can drive higher framerates, while at 4K the GPU's pixel throughput limits performance.

Q: How many other combos rank below this one in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 425th out of 2,996 total tested combinations, meaning 2,571 combos rank below it. This places the system in the top 14.2% of all tested pairings for this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete matrix of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average framerates are: Low 183 FPS, Medium 143 FPS (with min 121 and max 164), High 107 FPS, and Ultra 102 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at 1080p with min/max values recorded, showing a range of 121-164 FPS. At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 148 FPS, Medium 115 FPS (min 98, max 132), High 86 FPS, and Ultra 82 FPS. The Medium preset again has the only min/max data, with a 98-132 FPS range. At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 109 FPS, Medium 85 FPS (min 72, max 98), High 64 FPS, and Ultra 61 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K has a min of 72 and max of 98, which is a narrower range than at lower resolutions, indicating more consistent frame times under heavier GPU load.

The settings scaling is remarkably consistent across resolutions. Moving from Low to Medium costs roughly 21.9% at 1080p (183 to 143), 22.3% at 1440p (148 to 115), and 22.0% at 4K (109 to 85). Moving from Medium to High costs 25.2% at 1080p (143 to 107), 25.2% at 1440p (115 to 86), and 24.7% at 4K (85 to 64). The High-to-Ultra step is the smallest: 4.7% at 1080p (107 to 102), 4.7% at 1440p (86 to 82), and 4.7% at 4K (64 to 61). This consistent 4.7% penalty for the High-to-Ultra step across all resolutions suggests that Ultra adds a relatively small incremental load compared to the jump from Medium to High. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs 19.1% at Low (183 to 148), 19.6% at Medium (143 to 115), 19.6% at High (107 to 86), and 19.6% at Ultra (102 to 82). The 1440p-to-4K step costs 26.4% at Low (148 to 109), 26.1% at Medium (115 to 85), 25.6% at High (86 to 64), and 25.6% at Ultra (82 to 61). The resolution penalty is slightly higher at lower settings, which indicates that the GPU's fill-rate limits are more exposed when the CPU is not the bottleneck.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 scores of 7,303 single-core and 51,731 multi-core place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 84,003. The single-thread performance is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for relying heavily on a few primary threads for simulation logic and draw call processing. The 5.80 GHz boost clock is among the highest in the database, and the PassMark single-thread score of 4,823 confirms that the CPU can feed the GPU with enough data to sustain high framerates at lower resolutions. The CPU's L3 cache is 36 MB shared, which helps with the large world data that flight simulators stream, and the memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 provides sufficient throughput for the game's asset loading.

The data shows the CPU's influence waning as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 183 FPS, which is likely CPU-bound given the GPU's capability — the RTX 4070 SUPER could theoretically render more frames if the CPU could provide them. The 19.1% drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings (183 to 148) is the smallest relative drop across the resolution range, suggesting that at 1080p the CPU is the limiting factor. As resolution increases, the GPU becomes the constraint, and the CPU's importance diminishes — evidenced by the larger 25-26% drops from 1440p to 4K. The CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (deltaPct 0.2) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (deltaPct 1.1), score within 1.2% of the 290K Plus, meaning that swapping to a slightly faster or slower CPU would have minimal impact on game framerates. The CPU's 24 threads are not fully utilized by the game, as flight simulators typically scale to 8-12 threads at most, but the high boost clock and strong single-thread performance are the key attributes that matter here. The data implies that this CPU will not be the limiting factor in most scenarios, but at 1080p Low settings, it may cap the framerate below what the GPU could theoretically deliver.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for this combo. At 4K, the Medium preset (85 FPS average) is the sweet spot — it delivers well above 60 FPS with a minimum of 72 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in demanding scenes. The High preset at 4K (64 FPS) is also viable, but its lack of min/max data means there is uncertainty about frame dips; the Medium preset's recorded min of 72 FPS provides a safer guarantee. Ultra at 4K (61 FPS) is marginal — it barely exceeds 60 FPS on average, and with no min/max data, users risk occasional stutters. At 1440p, the Medium preset (115 FPS, min 98, max 132) is the recommended choice for a high-refresh-rate experience, as it maintains a minimum above 90 FPS. The High preset at 1440p (86 FPS) is also strong and offers better visual fidelity, but the Medium preset's min/max data makes it the safer choice for consistent frame pacing. At 1080p, the Medium preset (143 FPS, min 121, max 164) is the best option for esports-level smoothness, though competitive players might prefer the Low preset (183 FPS) for maximum framerate. The High preset at 1080p (107 FPS) is a good middle ground, but the Ultra preset (102 FPS) offers only a 4.7% improvement over High while costing the same relative performance at every resolution — meaning Ultra is the least efficient upgrade from High.

The data consistently shows that the High-to-Ultra step is the smallest performance hit (4.7% across all resolutions), making Ultra a reasonable choice if the average framerate is already above the target threshold. However, the Medium-to-High step is much larger (approximately 25% across all resolutions), so users should prioritize getting to Medium first, then consider High if they have headroom. For this system, the recommended presets are: 4K Medium (85 FPS), 1440p High (86 FPS) or Medium (115 FPS) depending on refresh rate, and 1080p Medium (143 FPS) or High (107 FPS) for the best visual-to-performance ratio. The Ultra preset at any resolution is only worth it if the user prioritizes maximum visual fidelity over the modest 4.7% framerate cost, and at 4K it should be avoided unless the user accepts 61 FPS as an acceptable average. The Medium preset is the most consistent performer across all resolutions, with recorded min/max values that indicate stable frame delivery — the 72 FPS minimum at 4K and 98 FPS minimum at 1440p are reassuring for flight sim enthusiasts who need predictable performance during complex scenes with dense terrain or weather effects.