Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents one of the most demanding real-time workloads in PC gaming, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H with the AMD Radeon 8060S produces a distinctive performance profile. The measured data reveals a system that is consistently playable, but the balance between the processor and graphics solution shifts dramatically depending on resolution and quality settings. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, exploring how the 16-core CPU and the integrated-class GPU contribute to the final frame rates across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and can boost up to 5.00 GHz, which is critical for a flight simulator that must handle complex flight models, AI traffic, and dynamic weather systems alongside the rendering pipeline. The CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB per-core L2 cache provide the data locality needed for the massive draw distances and streaming world data that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for.

Benchmark results for this CPU show a strong multi-threaded capability, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221 and a single-core score of 3984. The PassMark multi-thread score of 32956 and single-thread score of 4005 reinforce that the chip has both high throughput and solid per-core performance. This matters for the game because while modern flight simulators can use many threads for terrain loading and physics, the main game thread still benefits significantly from high single-core performance. The data indicates the Ultra X7 368H sits in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40518, placing it virtually identical to the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, deltaPct -0.1) and Intel Core 5 223PE (40585, deltaPct -0.2), while slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, deltaPct 0.2).

Looking at the measured FPS data, the CPU's influence is most apparent at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p with Low settings, the system reaches 111 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in any configuration. This suggests that at this point, the CPU is able to feed the GPU with enough data to keep it saturated. However, the 16-thread design (no Hyper-Threading) means that while it has many physical cores, each core handles one thread, which can be a limitation in heavily threaded scenarios. The PassMark data compression score of 312927 and integer math score of 88083 show strong general-purpose performance, but the floating-point math score of 105681 is more modest relative to other metrics, which could be relevant for the game's physics calculations.

The 5.00 GHz boost clock is a key asset here. Flight Simulator often has frame time spikes when loading new scenery tiles, and a high boost clock helps minimize those hitches. The fact that the CPU is mobile-oriented, with a 25 W TDP and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth on LPDDR5X, indicates it is power-constrained compared to desktop parts, yet the benchmark scores show it still performs competitively with much higher-power rivals. The data suggests that the CPU is rarely the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, but it sets a baseline for performance that the GPU must build upon.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon 8060S is a fascinating piece of hardware: it is an integrated GPU (IGP) that uses system shared memory, based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture with a 4 nm process node from TSMC. It carries 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, along with 40 ray tracing cores. The GPU has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is notably high for an integrated solution. Its theoretical performance is rated at 14.85 TFLOPS for FP32 operations, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6.

The fact that the VRAM is "System Shared" with "System Dependent" bandwidth is a major factor in this game's performance. Microsoft Flight Simulator is notoriously memory-hungry, and sharing memory with the CPU can create contention. The GPU's average benchmark score is 55757, placing it in the 87th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, deltaPct 0.1), which it essentially matches, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (56083, deltaPct -0.6), which is remarkably close despite the RTX 5080 being a discrete high-end card. The Radeon 8060S also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828, deltaPct 1.7) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54247, deltaPct 2.8).

In practice, the GPU's performance scales predictably with resolution. At 1080p Low, it achieves 111 FPS, but this drops to 89 FPS at 1440p and 66 FPS at 4K. This scaling pattern—a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 26% drop from 1440p to 4K—indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor as resolution increases. The 2900 MHz boost clock helps maintain performance, but the shared memory bandwidth is a persistent constraint. The pixel rate of 185.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 464.0 GTexel/s are respectable, but they do not compensate for the lack of dedicated VRAM. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 84626 provide context, but the real-world FPS numbers tell the story: the GPU can handle the game at playable rates, but it struggles to maintain high frame rates at demanding settings.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H compare to its closest rivals in CPU benchmarks?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557, deltaPct -0.1) and Intel Core 5 223PE (40585, deltaPct -0.2). It is slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431, deltaPct 0.2) and Intel Xeon 6507P (40426, deltaPct 0.2). This places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the highest average FPS the combo achieves, and at what settings?

A: The highest average FPS is 111, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is significantly higher than the next best, which is 89 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, indicating that Low settings at 1080p are where the system is most comfortable.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 8060S more comparable to a discrete or integrated GPU?

A: The data shows it is competitive with discrete GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 55757 is within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698), and it is only 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (56083). This puts it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs, despite being an IGP.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This means it sits in the upper-middle portion of the pack, outperforming roughly 43% of all tested systems but being beaten by the majority.

Q: Does increasing resolution from 1080p to 4K halve the frame rate?

A: No, it does not halve it. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 111 FPS at 1080p to 66 FPS at 4K, which is a 40% reduction. At High settings, it drops from 65 FPS at 1080p to 39 FPS at 4K, a 40% reduction as well. The scaling is consistent but not linear with pixel count.

Q: Which settings preset provides the most balanced experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset delivers an average of 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. This is the only preset at this resolution that maintains an average above 60 FPS while offering higher fidelity than Low, making it the best balance of smoothness and visual quality.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 8060S ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 57th percentile of all systems tested, meaning it outperforms a majority of setups but still trails a significant portion. The rank is a composite of the CPU's 87th percentile standing and the GPU's 87th percentile standing, but the game's specific demands on memory bandwidth and shared resources likely drag the overall experience down slightly from what those individual percentiles might suggest.

Interpreting this rank requires understanding that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a unique beast. It is not a typical first-person shooter where GPU raw power dominates; it is a simulation that stresses both the CPU's ability to process complex flight dynamics and the GPU's capacity to render vast landscapes. The fact that this combo sits in the upper-middle range indicates that it can handle the game, but not with maximum settings at high resolutions. The data supports this: at 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 37, which is borderline unplayable, while at 1080p Low, it reaches 111 FPS, which is very smooth.

The rank also reflects the balance between the two components. The CPU is powerful enough to prevent major bottlenecks, as evidenced by the 111 FPS at 1080p Low, but the GPU's shared memory architecture limits performance at higher settings. This is not a system that will push a high-refresh-rate monitor at 4K, but it is one that can provide a solid flight experience at 1080p or 1440p with adjusted settings. Compared to the nearest rival combos, the CPU's performance is virtually indistinguishable from the Core 7 253PE and Core 5 223PE, while the GPU's performance is nearly identical to the RX 6750 GRE, suggesting that this combo would rank similarly to systems built with those parts.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern in how the system scales from 1080p to 4K. Across all settings presets, the drop from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 is consistently around 20-21%, and the drop from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is another 26-27%. For example, at Low settings, the FPS goes from 111 at 1080p to 89 at 1440p (a 19.8% drop) and then to 66 at 4K (a 25.8% drop). At Ultra settings, the numbers are 62 at 1080p, 50 at 1440p (a 19.4% drop), and 37 at 4K (a 26% drop).

This scaling pattern is informative. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload would not change much. Instead, the FPS drops consistently, which strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions. The Radeon 8060S has to render more pixels, and despite its high boost clock, it cannot maintain frame rates as the pixel count grows. The fact that the percentage drop is nearly identical across all settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) suggests that the GPU is uniformly saturated regardless of the quality level, and the only variable is the absolute frame rate.

What is particularly telling is the gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the spread is 111 FPS (Low) versus 62 FPS (Ultra), a 44% difference. At 4K, the spread is 66 FPS (Low) versus 37 FPS (Ultra), a 44% difference as well. This consistency indicates that the rendering workload scales linearly with settings, and the GPU's performance headroom is the same at every resolution. For users, this means that lowering settings has a predictable impact, but the resolution choice has a more significant effect on overall smoothness. The data implies that to achieve a stable 60 FPS experience, one must either play at 1080p with Medium settings (86 FPS) or 1440p with Low settings (89 FPS), but not at 4K with any settings above Low (66 FPS).

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results provide a comprehensive grid of average FPS across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 111 FPS on Low, 86 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 73 and maximum of 99), 65 FPS on High, and 62 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded min/max values, showing a 26 FPS range that indicates some frame time variance, likely due to terrain loading.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop to 89 FPS on Low, 69 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80), 52 FPS on High, and 50 FPS on Ultra. At this resolution, the Medium preset's minimum of 59 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold, which could result in occasional stutters, but the average of 69 FPS provides a generally smooth experience. The High and Ultra presets both fall below 60 FPS on average, making them less desirable for fast-paced flight maneuvers.

At 3840x2160, the performance takes a significant hit. Low settings yield 66 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a simulator that benefits from high frame rates. Medium settings drop to 51 FPS (with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 59), High settings fall to 39 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 37 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K is the only one that comes close to maintaining a playable rate, but its minimum of 44 FPS indicates noticeable dips. The Ultra preset at 4K is effectively unusable for serious flight simulation, as the 37 FPS average would lead to a choppy and unresponsive experience.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is the resolution where the system can comfortably handle all presets, 1440p is viable with Low or Medium settings, and 4K is only practical with Low settings. The lack of min/max data for most presets suggests that the system is relatively stable, with the exception of the Medium presets where the variance is recorded. This stability is likely due to the CPU's consistent performance, which prevents major frame time spikes that could be caused by complex scenes.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and desired smoothness. For users with a 1080p display, the Medium preset offers the best balance, delivering an average of 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even during complex scenes with heavy weather or dense scenery. The High preset at 65 FPS is also viable, but the Ultra preset at 62 FPS is borderline, as any slight dip could push it below the ideal threshold.

For 1440p users, the Low preset is the safest choice, providing 89 FPS on average. However, the Medium preset at 69 FPS is a better compromise for those who want improved visuals without sacrificing too much performance. The minimum of 59 FPS at Medium is slightly concerning, but it is still within a playable range. High and Ultra at 1440p are not recommended, as their averages of 52 and 50 FPS respectively fall below the 60 FPS target and would be noticeably less fluid.

At 4K, the options are limited. The Low preset at 66 FPS is the only setting that maintains an average above 60 FPS, making it the definitive choice for 4K gaming. The Medium preset at 51 FPS is playable but has a minimum of 44 FPS, which could be problematic during demanding moments. High and Ultra at 4K are not recommended, as their sub-40 FPS averages would result in a laggy and unresponsive experience. For the best overall experience, the data suggests that 1080p with Medium settings is the sweet spot for this combo, offering high frame rates with moderate visual fidelity. If resolution is more important than settings, then 1440p with Low or Medium is the way to go, while 4K should only be attempted with Low settings and a tolerance for occasional frame dips.