Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H paired with the AMD Radeon 8060S reveals a system that is surprisingly capable at lower resolutions but clearly constrained at 4K. The data shows a combination that ranks in the 57th percentile of all tested combos, placing it in the middle of the pack for this specific simulation.

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

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and can boost up to 5.10 GHz, which is a substantial range that allows the chip to scale its performance depending on the workload. The processor has a 25 W TDP, which is remarkably low for a chip with this core count, and it uses a dual-channel LPDDR5X memory interface with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 18911, while its single-core score is 2200.5. These numbers place the processor in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall compute capability. When compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a very tight grouping. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D has an average score of 44573, which is only 0.2% higher than this chip’s average score of 44466. Similarly, the Intel Core i9-13950HX and AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 are within 0.3% and 0.4% respectively, with scores of 44342 and 44309. The Intel Core i5-13600 trails by 0.5% with a score of 44240.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is primarily tied to simulating the world, handling physics, and managing the complex scenery streaming. The 16 threads provide a solid foundation, and the high boost clock of 5.10 GHz is valuable for the single-threaded tasks that this game relies on for frame pacing. Looking at the measured FPS, the performance at 1080p Low is 111 FPS, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. This suggests that at lower settings, the CPU is not the bottleneck, and the processor’s strong single-core performance is allowing the graphics card to operate at its full potential. However, the gap between 1080p Low and 1080p Ultra is significant, dropping from 111 FPS to 62 FPS, which indicates that the game’s higher graphical settings impose a heavy load on the rendering pipeline, not just the CPU. The fact that the CPU’s average benchmark score is only 0.2% below the Ryzen 5 7500X3D, a chip often associated with gaming, suggests that this Intel part should not be a limiting factor in most scenarios within this title.

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

The AMD Radeon 8060S is an integrated graphics solution based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It uses the Strix Halo chip and is part of the Navi Mobile generation. The GPU has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is a substantial boost potential for an integrated part. It features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The memory configuration is entirely system shared, meaning the VRAM size, type, and bus width are all dependent on the system’s main memory, and the bandwidth is system dependent as well. The GPU has a 55 W TDP and connects via a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

In terms of raw theoretical performance, the Radeon 8060S delivers 14.85 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, with a pixel rate of 185.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 464.0 GTexel/s. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2162, and the Geekbench OpenCL score is 84626, with a Vulkan score of 80483. These benchmarks place the GPU in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals show interesting comparisons: the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB has an average score of 55698, which is 0.1% higher than this GPU’s average of 55757. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 has an average score of 56083, which is 0.6% higher, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is 1.7% lower at 54828, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is 2.8% lower at 54247.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is responsible for rendering the vast landscapes, detailed aircraft models, and weather effects. The measured FPS data clearly shows the GPU’s influence. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 37, while at 4K Low it climbs to 66. This spread of 29 FPS between the lowest and highest settings at 4K highlights how sensitive this game is to graphical presets. The system-shared memory is a critical factor here; the game’s high-resolution textures will consume a large portion of the shared memory pool, potentially impacting performance at 4K. The fact that the GPU’s average benchmark score is nearly identical to the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB suggests it has similar raw compute power, but the lack of dedicated VRAM could be a differentiator in this memory-intensive title.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 111 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, which is only 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D’s score of 44573. It is also 0.3% higher than the Intel Core i9-13950HX, which scores 44342.

Q: Is the GPU’s performance closer to a dedicated mid-range card or a high-end card?

A: The AMD Radeon 8060S has an average benchmark score of 55757, which is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080, placing it in a similar performance tier to these discrete options.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 89 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 50 FPS, resulting in a 39 FPS drop when moving to the highest settings.

Q: Does the combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at the Low preset, which averages 66 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K drops to 51 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets fall further to 39 FPS and 37 FPS, respectively.

Q: How does the combo’s ranking in this game compare to its overall percentile?

A: The combo ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 57th percentile for this specific game. The CPU and GPU individually sit in the 88th and 87th percentiles respectively, suggesting the game’s demands are more balanced than the individual component scores might imply.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and AMD Radeon 8060S ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the 57th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it performs better than just over half of the other combinations in the database. This is a notable result when considering the individual component percentiles. The CPU and GPU each sit in the high-80s percentiles among their peers, but the actual in-game performance is more middling, suggesting that the game’s unique workload prevents the hardware from fully flexing its muscles.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each component provides context. The CPU’s average score is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which is a chip known for strong gaming performance due to its 3D V-Cache. The GPU’s performance is on par with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and only 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080. If this combo were paired with a more powerful dedicated GPU, the rank would likely be much higher. The data implies that the integrated Radeon 8060S, while impressive for an IGP, is the limiting factor in achieving a higher rank, as the CPU appears to have ample headroom based on its synthetic scores. The 57th percentile rank indicates that while this is not a top-tier gaming machine for this title, it is also far from being a weak performer, and it holds its own against many discrete GPU configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo scales across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the performance is generally playable. The Low preset yields an average of 111 FPS, which is excellent for a smooth experience. The Medium preset averages 86 FPS, with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 99 FPS. The High preset drops to 65 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 62 FPS. The gap between Medium and Ultra is 24 FPS, showing that the higher presets impose a significant cost.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops are noticeable. The Low preset averages 89 FPS, which is still very smooth. The Medium preset averages 69 FPS, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. The High preset falls to 52 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 50 FPS. At this resolution, the step from Low to Medium is a 20 FPS drop, while the step from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain high frame rates. The Low preset averages 66 FPS, which is the only playable option. The Medium preset averages 51 FPS, with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS. The High preset drops to 39 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 37 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 29 FPS, and the data shows that only the Low preset can consistently stay above the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset’s minimum of 44 FPS indicates that there will be noticeable stutters during heavy scenery loads.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal preset depends heavily on the target resolution. For 1920x1080, the High preset at 65 FPS offers a good balance between visual fidelity and performance, but the Medium preset at 86 FPS provides a more comfortable margin for smoothness, especially with its minimum of 73 FPS. The Ultra preset at 62 FPS is playable but leaves little headroom for complex scenes. Given that the Medium preset has a higher average and a more robust minimum, it stands out as the safest choice for a consistent experience at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS, which is right at the edge of smooth playability. The High preset at 52 FPS is acceptable for a flight simulator, where frame rates are often lower, but the Medium preset provides a better balance. The Low preset at 89 FPS is excellent for competitive smoothness, but it sacrifices much of the visual detail that makes this game immersive. The Ultra preset at 50 FPS is the most demanding and should only be chosen if the user prioritizes visuals over frame rate stability.

For 3840x2160, the recommendation is clear: use the Low preset, which averages 66 FPS. This is the only 4K preset that maintains a playable frame rate above 60 FPS. The Medium preset at 51 FPS is borderline, and the High and Ultra presets at 39 FPS and 37 FPS, respectively, will cause noticeable lag. The data suggests that this combo is not suited for 4K gaming with high settings in this title. The best experience overall, considering all resolutions, is at 1080p with Medium settings, which provides a high average FPS of 86 and a minimum of 73 FPS, ensuring a smooth and visually pleasing experience.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The scaling of FPS from 1080p to 4K reveals the nature of the bottleneck in this system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 111 at 1080p to 89 at 1440p, and then to 66 at 4K. This represents a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K, which is a significant reduction. At Medium settings, the FPS goes from 86 at 1080p to 69 at 1440p, and then to 51 at 4K. This is a 41% drop from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the FPS drops from 65 at 1080p to 52 at 1440p, and then to 39 at 4K, a 40% drop. Finally, at Ultra settings, the FPS goes from 62 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p, and then to 37 at 4K, a 40% drop.

The consistency of this 40% drop across all settings is telling. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, the FPS would not scale so linearly with resolution, as the CPU load would remain relatively constant while the GPU load increases. The fact that the FPS drops by roughly the same percentage at every preset indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor. As resolution increases, the pixel count and fill rate demand grow, and the Radeon 8060S’s compute resources are simply not sufficient to maintain the same level of performance. The system-shared memory also plays a role here, as the higher resolutions require more memory bandwidth and capacity, which could further constrain the GPU.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 49 FPS (111 vs 62), while at 4K, the difference is 29 FPS (66 vs 37). This narrowing gap indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that even reducing settings has a smaller impact. The limiting component is unequivocally the integrated GPU. The CPU, with its high single-core boost clock and strong multi-core scores, appears to have sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions, but the GPU’s rendering capabilities cap the overall performance. This is a classic case of a balanced CPU with an underpowered GPU for the most demanding resolution.