Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER

This pairing of Intel's 24-core Arrow Lake Refresh flagship with NVIDIA's 16 GB Ada Lovelace GPU produces a system that handles Microsoft Flight Simulator's demanding workloads with substantial headroom across all tested resolutions. The data shows a combo that ranks in the 94th percentile of all tested configurations, with frame rates that remain playable even at 4K Ultra settings, though the scaling patterns reveal where each component takes over the workload.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 209 FPS at 1920x1080 to 169 FPS at 2560x1440 — a 19% reduction — and then further to 125 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a 40% total decline from 1080p to 4K. This scaling behavior indicates that at Low settings, the CPU is still providing enough throughput that the GPU becomes progressively more stressed as pixel count rises, but the system never becomes critically GPU-bound at any resolution.

The Medium settings row shows a similar pattern with slightly tighter scaling. From 163 FPS at 1080p to 131 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop) and then to 97 FPS at 4K (a 40% total decline), the consistency suggests that the rendering workload scales predictably with pixel count. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings — 138 at 1080p, 112 at 1440p, and 82 at 4K — demonstrate that even the worst-case frame times remain well above playable thresholds, with the 4K minimum still holding at 82 FPS.

High settings scaling follows a slightly steeper curve. The 1080p average of 123 FPS drops to 99 FPS at 1440p (a 20% reduction) and then to 73 FPS at 4K (a 41% total decline). The steeper drop from 1440p to 4K at High settings compared to Low and Medium suggests that the additional shading and texture work at High settings begins to tax the GPU more heavily at 4K, though the 73 FPS average remains entirely playable for a flight simulator.

Ultra settings present the most demanding scenario, with 117 FPS at 1080p dropping to 94 FPS at 1440p (a 20% reduction) and then to 69 FPS at 4K (a 41% total decline). The similarity in percentage drops across all four quality presets — roughly 20% from 1080p to 1440p and another 20-21% from 1440p to 4K — indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator scales resolution in a remarkably linear fashion with this hardware combination. The limiting component shifts from CPU at 1080p Low to GPU at 4K Ultra, but neither component creates a severe bottleneck at any tested configuration.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER brings substantial memory and bandwidth resources to this workload. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, the card delivers 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which proves sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's vast terrain and scenery data streaming at all tested settings and resolutions. The GPU's 10240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output processors provide the raw compute throughput needed to maintain the observed frame rates.

Clock speeds for this card are notable: a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz, with memory running at 1438 MHz (23 Gbps effective). These clocks, combined with the Ada Lovelace architecture's efficiency, allow the RTX 4080 SUPER to maintain high utilization even when pushing 4K Ultra settings. The GPU's 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 816.0 GTexel/s texture rate are directly relevant to the rendering workloads in flight simulation, where terrain texturing and lighting calculations dominate.

The GPU's benchmark scores contextualize its position. A Passmark G3D score of 34245 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 260075 place this card in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the standard RTX 4080, scores 54247 in average benchmark score — a mere 0.1% difference — indicating that the SUPER variant offers only marginal synthetic performance gains. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X sits 1.1% behind, while the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and Radeon 8060S trail by 2.7% and 2.8% respectively. In real-world flight simulation terms, these small synthetic differences translate to the RTX 4080 SUPER performing essentially on par with its closest competitors, with the measured FPS data showing the actual gameplay experience.

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6600 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 219065 further confirm that this card handles modern DirectX 12 workloads competently. For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that relies heavily on continuous geometry and texture streaming, the 16 GB frame buffer provides comfortable headroom — none of the measured FPS rows show signs of memory capacity limiting performance, even at 4K Ultra where terrain detail and object density are highest.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 2996 tested combinations in the database, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the RTX 4080 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 180, placing it in the top 6% of all configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking reflects the synergy between the CPU's strong single-thread performance and the GPU's substantial rasterization throughput.

The CPU component of this combo deserves scrutiny. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus carries an average benchmark score of 84003, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, scores 83807 — a 0.2% delta that places the 290K Plus marginally ahead. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% behind) and AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% behind) trail slightly, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) actually leads by 1.3%. In Cinebench R23, the 290K Plus scores 51731 multi-core and 7303 single-core, with the single-core figure being particularly relevant for flight simulation's physics and scenery processing threads.

The GPU's 86th percentile ranking is lower than the CPU's 96th percentile, which suggests that the RTX 4080 SUPER is the more average component in this pairing. However, the combined result — rank 180 out of 2996 — shows that the whole exceeds the sum of its parts for this specific game. The 4K Ultra result of 69 FPS, while not class-leading, demonstrates that this combo can handle the most demanding settings without requiring compromises.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 209 FPS, which drops to 163 FPS at Medium (with a minimum of 138 FPS and maximum of 187 FPS). High settings average 123 FPS, while Ultra averages 117 FPS. The relatively small gap between High (123 FPS) and Ultra (117 FPS) — just 5% — indicates that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU combination has enough headroom that the Ultra preset's additional effects do not create a significant performance penalty.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 169 FPS at Low, 131 FPS at Medium (minimum 112 FPS, maximum 151 FPS), 99 FPS at High, and 94 FPS at Ultra. The Medium settings minimum of 112 FPS is particularly strong, showing that even during complex scenes with dense terrain or busy airports, the frame rate stays well above 100 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows further at this resolution — just 5 FPS difference — suggesting that the Ultra preset's marginal visual improvements come at a very reasonable performance cost.

At 3840x2160, the system still maintains respectable performance. Low settings average 125 FPS, Medium averages 97 FPS (with a minimum of 82 FPS and maximum of 111 FPS), High averages 73 FPS, and Ultra averages 69 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 82 FPS is notable because it shows that even in demanding scenes, the system avoids dropping below smooth frame rates. The High-to-Ultra gap at 4K shrinks to just 4 FPS, making the Ultra preset a compelling choice for users with 4K displays who want maximum visual fidelity without a substantial frame rate penalty.

The scaling across resolutions at each preset follows a consistent pattern. Low settings lose 40% from 1080p to 4K (209 to 125 FPS), Medium loses 40% (163 to 97 FPS), High loses 41% (123 to 73 FPS), and Ultra loses 41% (117 to 69 FPS). This uniformity suggests that the rendering pipeline in Microsoft Flight Simulator scales predictably with pixel count, and neither the CPU nor GPU creates a disproportionate bottleneck at any specific resolution.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. The measured average at 3840x2160 Ultra is 69 FPS, providing a 15% buffer above the 60 FPS threshold. Even at 4K High settings, the average of 73 FPS offers additional headroom for complex scenes.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival for this game?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus scores 84003 in average benchmark score, placing it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090). The AMD EPYC 7F72 leads by 1.3% with a score of 85072.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between settings at the same resolution?

A: At every resolution, the largest gap is between Low and Medium settings. At 1080p, Low averages 209 FPS versus Medium's 163 FPS — a 46 FPS difference. At 1440p, the gap is 38 FPS (169 vs 131), and at 4K, it is 28 FPS (125 vs 97).

Q: Is the RTX 4080 SUPER significantly faster than the standard RTX 4080?

A: Based on average benchmark scores, the difference is minimal — the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54209 versus the RTX 4080's 54247, a 0.1% delta. In practical terms, the two cards perform nearly identically in this game.

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

A: The measured average is 131 FPS, with a minimum of 112 FPS and maximum of 151 FPS. This provides a comfortable experience for high-refresh-rate displays, as even the minimum stays above 100 FPS.

Q: Does 4K Low settings provide a significantly higher frame rate than 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, the difference is substantial. 4K Low averages 125 FPS, which is 81% higher than 4K Ultra's 69 FPS. This makes Low settings a viable option for users prioritizing maximum smoothness over visual quality.

Settings Recommendations

For users with a 1080p display, the Ultra preset at 117 FPS is the clear choice. The 5 FPS difference between High (123 FPS) and Ultra (117 FPS) is negligible in practice, and the visual enhancements from Ultra settings enhance the flight simulation experience without compromising smoothness. Even if frame rates dip in dense scenarios, the margin above 60 FPS is substantial.

At 1440p, Ultra settings at 94 FPS provide an excellent balance. The difference between High (99 FPS) and Ultra (94 FPS) remains small at just 5 FPS, so there is little reason to sacrifice the Ultra preset's visual quality. For users with 144 Hz displays who want to maximize frame rates, Medium settings at 131 FPS are worth considering, though the visual trade-off is significant.

For 4K displays, the recommendation depends on priorities. Ultra settings at 69 FPS offer the best visual experience and remain above 60 FPS, making this the preferred choice for users who value image quality. However, the 4K High preset at 73 FPS provides a small performance buffer that may be beneficial in busy airport scenes or during weather-heavy conditions. The 4K Medium preset at 97 FPS is an excellent option for users with high-refresh-rate 4K displays who prioritize smoothness, as the minimum of 82 FPS ensures consistent performance even in demanding scenarios.

The data shows that this combo handles all presets at all resolutions with playable frame rates, but the most compelling choices are 1080p Ultra, 1440p Ultra, and 4K Ultra for users who want maximum quality, with 4K Medium as a strong alternative for those prioritizing frame rate headroom. The consistent scaling across resolutions means users can confidently adjust settings based on their display capabilities and performance preferences without encountering unexpected bottlenecks.