Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 produces a clear, playable picture of what a high-end mobile platform can do. The measured data shows a system that is firmly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, but which also reveals the CPU's strength in maintaining solid frame rates when the graphical load is reduced. This combination ranks in the 69th percentile of all tested combos for this game, indicating strong but not absolute top-tier performance among the 2,996 configurations evaluated.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and tells a classic story of GPU-bound performance. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 88 FPS at 1920x1080 to 71 FPS at 2560x1440, a 19.3% decrease, and then further down to 53 FPS at 3840x2160, a 39.8% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline indicates that the RTX 4080 is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the rendering workload increases faster than the CPU can feed frames.

At Low settings, the scaling pattern shifts. The average FPS at 1080p is 151, dropping to 122 at 1440p (a 19.2% decrease) and then to 90 at 4K (a 40.4% decrease from 1080p). Interestingly, the percentage drops are nearly identical between High and Low settings when moving from 1080p to 1440p, but the 1440p-to-4K transition is steeper for Low settings (26.2% drop) compared to High settings (25.4% drop). This suggests that at Low settings, the CPU begins to have more influence at lower resolutions, while the GPU still dominates at 4K.

The Medium settings results show a similar trend, with 118 FPS at 1080p, 95 FPS at 1440p (a 19.5% drop), and 70 FPS at 4K (a 40.7% drop). The Ultra settings follow suit: 84 FPS at 1080p, 68 FPS at 1440p (a 19.0% drop), and 50 FPS at 4K (a 40.5% drop). The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings strongly indicates that the scaling is resolution-driven rather than settings-driven. The limiting component at 4K is unequivocally the GPU, as the CPU has more than enough headroom to process the game's simulation logic at these frame rates.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, with its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus delivering 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, is the dominant component in this configuration. Its 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power and 76 RT cores are put to heavy use in Flight Simulator's rendering of terrain and aircraft. The GPU's boost clock of 2505 MHz, with a base of 2205 MHz, helps maintain consistent performance across the varying scene complexity typical of flight simulation.

The memory configuration is particularly relevant here. The 16 GB VRAM capacity ensures that even at 4K Ultra settings, the game does not run out of memory, which would cause severe stuttering. The measured minimum FPS of 59 at 4K Medium and 100 at 1080p Medium suggests that frame time consistency is decent, with no catastrophic drops that would indicate memory thrashing. The GPU's pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s are sufficient to handle the high-resolution textures and detailed geometry that Flight Simulator presents.

In benchmark comparisons, the RTX 4080 sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54,247. Its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, scores slightly lower at 54,209, a delta of just 0.1%, meaning this non-SUPER variant is virtually identical in overall performance. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X trails by 1.1%, while the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and Radeon 8060S are 2.6% and 2.7% behind, respectively. This places the RTX 4080 in a strong position, though not at the absolute top of the GPU hierarchy for this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p High settings?

A: The average FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings is 71 FPS. This is a 19.3% reduction from the 88 FPS achieved at 1080p High, showing that the GPU is still comfortably handling the load at this resolution.

Q: Does the system maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, the average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 50 FPS. While this is below the 60 FPS threshold often preferred for fast-paced games, for a flight simulator where smooth panning is more important than twitch reflexes, this is a playable result. The minimum FPS data is not provided for Ultra settings, but the Medium settings minimum of 59 FPS at 4K suggests the Ultra experience may have occasional dips.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Low compared to 4K Ultra?

A: The difference is significant. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 151 FPS, while at 4K Ultra it drops to 50 FPS. This is a 67% reduction in frame rate, demonstrating how heavily the GPU is taxed by the combination of high resolution and maximum settings.

Q: Is there a big difference between High and Ultra settings at the same resolution?

A: At 1080p, High produces 88 FPS while Ultra produces 84 FPS, a difference of only 4.5%. At 1440p, the difference is 71 FPS vs 68 FPS (4.2%), and at 4K, it's 53 FPS vs 50 FPS (5.7%). This suggests that the visual quality improvements from Ultra over High come at a relatively small performance cost, making Ultra a viable choice if the frame rate is acceptable.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: This specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks 917th out of 2,996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 31% of all configurations, indicating a well-balanced system that outperforms the majority of setups.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40,518. Its closest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, scores 40,557, which is only 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431, which is 0.2% lower. This shows the CPU is extremely closely matched with its direct competitors.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 151 FPS, which is excellent for a flight simulator and provides a very smooth experience. Medium settings drop to 118 FPS, with a minimum of 100 FPS and a maximum of 135 FPS, showing good frame time consistency. High settings yield 88 FPS, while Ultra settings bring the average down to 84 FPS. The small gap between High and Ultra at this resolution (only 4 FPS) indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU without becoming a bottleneck.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease proportionally. Low settings average 122 FPS, still highly playable. Medium settings average 95 FPS, with a minimum of 81 FPS and a maximum of 109 FPS, indicating a wider variance than at 1080p. High settings drop to 71 FPS, and Ultra settings to 68 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra remains small at 3 FPS, further confirming the GPU's role as the primary limiter at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system's limits are tested. Low settings average 90 FPS, which is still quite good for 4K. Medium settings average 70 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. This minimum is notable, as it shows the system can occasionally dip below 60 FPS at 4K Medium, which might be noticeable in dense urban areas or heavy weather. High settings average 53 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 50 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 4K is 3 FPS, similar to other resolutions, but the absolute values are low enough that users may need to compromise on settings to maintain a stable 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 2,996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 917th. This places it in the 69th percentile, meaning it outperforms roughly 69% of all tested systems. This is a strong result, but not a top-tier one, as the top 10% of combos likely feature more powerful desktop CPUs and GPUs.

The ranking reflects a balanced system where neither component is severely underpowered. The CPU's average benchmark score of 40,518 places it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU's score of 54,247 places it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs. Both components are similarly positioned, which is ideal for avoiding bottlenecks. The slight edge in CPU percentile suggests that in CPU-limited scenarios, such as at 1080p Low, the processor can push higher frame rates than the GPU can at 4K Ultra.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core, 16-thread processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration provides substantial multi-threaded performance, which is crucial for Flight Simulator's complex simulation of aerodynamics, weather, and world data.

In this game, the CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 151 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate that the CPU's ability to process the simulation and feed the GPU becomes critical. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,221 and single-core score of 3,984 indicate strong per-thread performance, which helps maintain high frame rates even when the GPU is not fully stressed.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 40,518 puts it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, scores 40,557, a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431, also within 0.2%. This indicates that the 368H is competitively positioned against its peers, providing no meaningful advantage or disadvantage in CPU-bound scenarios.

The 16 threads are fully utilized in Flight Simulator's multi-threaded engine, which handles terrain streaming, AI traffic, and physics calculations concurrently. The CPU's 18 MB of L3 cache helps reduce latency when accessing frequently used data, contributing to smoother frame times. The combination of high boost clock and sufficient core count means the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, except perhaps at very high frame rates where the GPU's workload is minimal.