Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER reveals a clear performance hierarchy across resolutions and presets. This combination, ranking 272nd out of 2996 tested combos, demonstrates strong capabilities, but the optimal settings depend heavily on the user's display resolution and performance targets. The data indicates that this system is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K gaming requires careful preset selection to maintain smoothness.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows for this combo provide a clear picture of how each preset performs at different resolutions. For users targeting the smoothest experience on a 1080p display, the Low preset delivers an average of 194 FPS, which is exceptionally high and suggests that the system is far from being a bottleneck at this resolution. However, the jump to Medium yields 151 FPS, still a very playable figure, while High drops to 114 FPS and Ultra to 108 FPS. The data suggests that at 1080p, even Ultra settings provide a comfortable frame rate, making the choice of preset more about visual fidelity than playability, as the lowest measured average is 108 FPS.

Moving to 1440p, the pattern shifts slightly. The Low preset delivers an average of 157 FPS, which is still excellent. Medium produces 122 FPS, and High comes in at 92 FPS, while Ultra drops to 87 FPS. For users with a 1440p monitor, the Medium preset appears to offer a balanced experience, as it maintains an average well above 60 FPS while providing better visual quality than Low. The High and Ultra presets are still playable, but the frame rate dip to the 87-92 FPS range may be noticeable to those accustomed to higher refresh rates.

At 4K, the situation becomes more constrained. The Low preset yields an average of 116 FPS, which is surprisingly high for 4K and indicates the GPU is still capable. Medium drops to 90 FPS, with a minimum of 77 FPS and a maximum of 104 FPS, making it a solid choice for a smooth experience. High averages 68 FPS, which is playable but approaches the threshold where some users might prefer lower settings. Ultra averages 64 FPS, which is the lowest recorded figure in the entire dataset. Given these numbers, the best experience per the measured rows depends on the target resolution. For 1080p, Ultra is viable without sacrificing playability. For 1440p, Medium offers the best balance of visual quality and frame rate, as the 122 FPS average is significantly higher than the 87 FPS of Ultra. For 4K, Medium is the recommended preset, as it provides a 90 FPS average with a minimum of 77 FPS, which is smoother than the High preset's 68 FPS average and the Ultra preset's 64 FPS average. The data shows that the Medium preset at 4K is the sweet spot, delivering a high average while keeping minimums above 60 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a central component in this system, and its specifications directly influence the measured results. The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s. This memory configuration is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for loading large textures and terrain data. The 16 GB capacity suggests that the card can handle high-resolution textures without running into memory limits, which is supported by the fact that even at 4K Ultra, the system still produces an average of 64 FPS, albeit the lowest in the dataset. The GPU's clock speeds are listed as a base of 2340 MHz and a boost of 2610 MHz, with memory running at 1313 MHz, translating to 21 Gbps effective. These clocks contribute to the card's overall compute capability, which includes 8448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The GPU also has 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores, which are relevant for any ray tracing or DLSS features in the game, though the measured data does not specify which features were enabled.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 31087, placing it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 with a score of 31206 (a delta of -0.4%), the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31220 (also -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31532 (-1.4%), and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31676 (-1.9%). These comparisons show that the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits in a competitive performance band, slightly below these other cards according to the average benchmark scores. In the context of this game, the GPU's performance is evident in the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p Low, the system hits 194 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 116 FPS. This 40% reduction in frame rate across a 4x increase in pixel count suggests that the GPU is becoming a limiting factor at higher resolutions, but it still manages to deliver high frame rates even at 4K. The measured data shows that the GPU's 16 GB VRAM and 672.3 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient to maintain playable frame rates across all tested presets, with the lowest average being 64 FPS at 4K Ultra.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset to use at 1440p for this combo?

A: Based on the measured data, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 provides an average FPS of 122, with a minimum of 104 and a maximum of 140. This is significantly higher than the High preset's 92 FPS and the Ultra preset's 87 FPS, making Medium the recommended choice for a smooth experience at 1440p.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER compare to its closest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has an average benchmark score of 31087. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 at 31206 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31220 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31532 (1.4% higher), and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31676 (1.9% higher). The data shows the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is slightly below all of these cards in average score.

Q: Is the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 16 GB VRAM enough for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The measured FPS data indicates that at 4K Ultra, the system still achieves an average of 64 FPS, which suggests the 16 GB of GDDR6X memory is sufficient for this game's texture and geometry demands. The GPU's memory bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s also supports high-resolution rendering without a severe performance collapse.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo, and at what resolution and settings?

A: The highest average FPS in the dataset is 194 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is followed by 157 FPS at 2560x1440 Low and 151 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807 (0.2% lower), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83090 (1.1% lower), the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82980 (1.2% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85072 (1.3% higher). The data shows the 290K Plus sits in the middle of these rivals.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo at 4K Medium?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the measured minimum FPS is 77, with an average of 90 and a maximum of 104. This minimum is above 60 FPS, indicating a generally smooth experience at this setting.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER achieves a rank of 272 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 9% of all tested configurations, which is a strong result given the large number of possible pairings. The rank reflects the system's ability to maintain high frame rates across a variety of settings and resolutions, as evidenced by the measured data. The combo's performance is particularly notable at 1080p and 1440p, where it consistently delivers averages above 87 FPS even at Ultra settings. At 4K, the rank is supported by the fact that the system can still produce playable frame rates, with the lowest average being 64 FPS at Ultra. The data shows that this combo is well-balanced, with neither the CPU nor GPU completely dominating the performance profile. The CPU's high average benchmark score of 84003, which places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, suggests that it is not a bottleneck in this game. The GPU, with its 76th percentile ranking, is more likely to be the limiting factor at higher resolutions, but it still provides sufficient performance for a smooth experience. The rank of 272 out of 2996 indicates that there are many other combos that perform better, but this system is clearly above average and capable of running the game well across different settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The CPU features a cache hierarchy that includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration is relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-threaded performance for game logic and physics, as well as multi-threaded performance for asset streaming and AI. The CPU's benchmark scores reflect its capabilities: in Cinebench R23, it scores 51731 in multicore and 7303 in single-core. In PassMark, it scores 60860 in multithread and 4823 in single-thread. These numbers place the CPU in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003.

Comparing to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has an average score of 83807, which is 0.2% lower, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090 (1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980 (1.2% lower). The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% higher. This data indicates that the 290K Plus is competitive with these high-end processors, though the differences are small. In the context of the game, the CPU's strong single-thread performance is likely a key factor in achieving the high frame rates seen at 1080p, where the GPU is less of a bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 194 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to maintain such high rates. However, as resolution increases to 1440p and 4K, the GPU becomes more dominant, and the CPU's role diminishes. The measured data shows that the FPS drops from 194 at 1080p Low to 157 at 1440p Low and 116 at 4K Low, which is a direct result of the GPU's rendering load increasing. The CPU's 24 cores and 24 threads also support the game's multi-threaded aspects, such as loading terrain and simulating weather, though the exact impact is not directly measurable from the FPS data alone. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and support for DDR5 memory also contribute to overall system performance, ensuring that data can be fed to the GPU efficiently.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions—1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160—each with four presets: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers an average of 194 FPS. The Medium preset averages 151 FPS, with a minimum of 129 and a maximum of 174. High averages 114 FPS, and Ultra averages 108 FPS. The data shows a clear trend: as settings increase, the frame rate decreases, but even at Ultra, the system maintains an average above 100 FPS. At 1440p, the Low preset averages 157 FPS. Medium averages 122 FPS, with a minimum of 104 and a maximum of 140. High averages 92 FPS, and Ultra averages 87 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 35 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 30 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 5 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns in performance cost as settings approach Ultra. At 4K, the Low preset averages 116 FPS. Medium averages 90 FPS, with a minimum of 77 and a maximum of 104. High averages 68 FPS, and Ultra averages 64 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 4 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset is not significantly more demanding than High at this resolution, but both are well below the frame rates seen at lower resolutions.

The data reveals that the scaling from 1080p to 1440p results in a roughly 19% decrease in FPS for Low (194 to 157), a 19% decrease for Medium (151 to 122), a 19% decrease for High (114 to 92), and a 19% decrease for Ultra (108 to 87). This consistent scaling suggests that the GPU is the primary factor in this resolution change. From 1440p to 4K, the decreases are more pronounced: Low drops by 26% (157 to 116), Medium by 26% (122 to 90), High by 26% (92 to 68), and Ultra by 26% (87 to 64). The larger drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is being pushed harder, and the 16 GB VRAM and 672.3 GB/s bandwidth are being utilized more heavily. The minimum and maximum FPS values are only provided for the Medium preset at each resolution, so the variability across other presets is not directly known. However, the available data shows that the Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 77 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, while at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 104 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, it is 129 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K provides insight into which component is limiting performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 194 FPS, which is an exceptionally high frame rate that suggests the CPU is capable of handling the game's demands without significant bottlenecking. As the resolution increases to 1440p, the FPS drops to 157, a decrease of 37 FPS or 19%. This drop is consistent with the GPU being the limiting factor, as the pixel count increases by 1.78 times, and the frame rate decreases proportionally. At 4K, the FPS drops further to 116, a decrease of 41 FPS from 1440p, or 26%. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 78 FPS, or 40%. This pattern holds across all presets: at Medium, the FPS drops from 151 at 1080p to 122 at 1440p (19% decrease) and then to 90 at 4K (26% decrease). At High, the drops are from 114 to 92 (19%) and then to 68 (26%). At Ultra, the drops are from 108 to 87 (19%) and then to 64 (26%).

The consistent 19% decrease from 1080p to 1440p and the 26% decrease from 1440p to 4K across all presets strongly indicate that the GPU is the limiting component in this system. The CPU, with its high single-thread and multi-thread performance, is able to keep up with the GPU's demands at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the very high frame rates at 1080p. However, as the resolution increases, the GPU's rendering load becomes the dominant factor, and the frame rate scales accordingly. The fact that the percentage decrease is the same across all presets suggests that the GPU's workload scales uniformly with resolution, regardless of the visual settings. This is typical for a game where the GPU is responsible for most of the rendering work, while the CPU handles game logic and physics. The data also shows that the GPU's 16 GB VRAM is sufficient even at 4K Ultra, as the system still produces an average of 64 FPS, which is playable. If the VRAM were insufficient, the frame rate would likely drop more severely at 4K Ultra, but the measured data does not show such a collapse. Overall, the resolution scaling analysis confirms that the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus provides ample headroom to support high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p.