Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the database, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and the AMD Radeon 890M illustrates the extreme pressure this game places on mobile hardware. The measured results place this pairing at rank 3,495 out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations. This is a system that can run the simulator, but the data clearly shows it is constrained at higher resolutions and settings, requiring careful adjustments to achieve a playable experience.

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 processor based on the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a TDP of 25 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 18 MB L3 cache. This configuration is notable for having no hyper-threading, meaning the 16 physical cores handle all 16 threads directly.

In synthetic benchmarks, the processor posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,911 and a single-core score of 2,200.5. These scores place the chip at the 88th percentile against all CPUs, indicating strong overall processing capability. The average benchmark score of 44,466 puts it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals. It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D by a negligible 0.2%, while leading the Intel Core i9-13950HX by 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 by 0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-13600 by 0.5%. The data shows that this CPU is fully competitive with these alternatives in general compute tasks.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant because the simulation engine is heavily dependent on single-thread performance for core flight modeling and physics calculations. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2,200.5 suggests the chip has ample headroom for these tasks. However, the lack of hyper-threading could be a factor in scenarios where the game's engine attempts to distribute work across more threads than are physically available. The 18 MB of shared L3 cache is also relevant, as the simulator frequently streams terrain and aircraft data, and a larger cache can help reduce latency in these data accesses. Despite the processor's capable scores, the measured FPS results in this game are low, indicating that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in most tested configurations rather than the CPU.

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

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning the VRAM size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host system's memory, which in this setup is LPDDR5X running on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

The GPU's raw compute capabilities include a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s, and an FP32 performance of 5.939 TFLOPS. The 890M's average benchmark score is 9,210, placing it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which it trails by 0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, which it trails by 0.7%. It also sits behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M by 1%. These deltas are small, indicating the 890M performs similarly to these older discrete GPUs in general benchmarks.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's limitations become evident. The game is known for its heavy graphical load, and the shared memory architecture means the GPU must compete with the CPU for bandwidth. The measured FPS data shows that the 890M struggles to maintain smooth frame rates, especially at higher resolutions. The system-shared memory is a critical constraint here, as the simulator can consume large amounts of VRAM for textures and geometry, and the reliance on system memory bandwidth can lead to performance degradation. The boost clock of 2900 MHz is high for an integrated part, but the relatively low shading unit count limits its ability to render complex scenes at high settings.

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 measured is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is followed by 40 FPS at 2560x1440 on Low, and 30 FPS at 3840x2160 on Low.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested configurations in this game?

A: The combination ranks 3,495 out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 6% of all systems tested with this game.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 50 on Low to 28 on Ultra, representing a 44% reduction in frame rate.

Q: Does this GPU outperform or underperform its closest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 8?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M trails the AMD Radeon Vega 8 by 0.1% in average benchmark score, indicating they are essentially performance peers in general compute tasks.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance relative to the Intel Core i5-13600?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score that is 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i5-13600, showing a slight edge in overall processing capability.

Q: Is the GPU's memory bandwidth fixed or dependent on other factors?

A: The GPU's memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent", meaning it relies on the host system's LPDDR5X memory configuration, which has a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo performs across different resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. On Low settings, the average FPS is 30, which is borderline but playable for a flight simulator. Medium settings drop the average to 23 FPS, with minimum and maximum readings of 20 and 26 FPS respectively. High settings yield an average of 17 FPS, and Ultra settings produce an average of 16 FPS, both of which are too low for a smooth experience.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance improves but remains constrained. Low settings deliver an average of 40 FPS, which is a significant step up from 4K. Medium settings provide an average of 31 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings average 23 FPS, and Ultra settings average 22 FPS. The pattern is consistent: lower settings are necessary to achieve acceptable frame rates, and the jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 9 FPS on average.

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its best performance. Low settings achieve an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 44 FPS. High settings average 29 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The data indicates that 1080p is the only resolution where this system can approach a consistently smooth experience, and only at the lowest settings. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is minimal, just 1 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank of 3,495 out of 3,714 tested combos places this system in the bottom 6% of all configurations tested with Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a clear indicator that the AMD Radeon 890M integrated GPU is the limiting factor, as the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's CPU benchmarks are strong. The CPU's average benchmark score of 44,466 and its 88th percentile ranking are in stark contrast to the GPU's 45th percentile ranking and average score of 9,210.

This disparity suggests that while the CPU is more than capable of handling the simulation's computational demands, the GPU cannot render the graphics at a pace that matches the CPU's output. The measured FPS data supports this, as the frame rates do not scale well with resolution changes, indicating a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU limitation. In the context of the 3,714 combos, this pairing is closer to the bottom than the top, meaning users should expect significant compromises in visual quality to maintain playable frame rates. The nearest rival GPUs, such as the GTX 960 and GTX 850M, are older discrete parts, and this integrated solution performs similarly to them, which reflects the 890M's efficiency but also a limitation for this demanding game.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only way to achieve a consistently playable experience with this combo is to use Low settings, and even then, resolution plays a critical role. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 50 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth 60 FPS target. This should be the primary choice for any user seeking a responsive experience. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average drops to 40 FPS, which is still playable for a flight simulator, but the frame pacing may feel less consistent. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls to 30 FPS, which is the minimum threshold for a playable experience, though it may struggle in dense scenery or during complex maneuvers.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, Medium settings at 1920x1080 offer an average of 39 FPS, which is a reasonable compromise. The minimum of 33 FPS indicates that the system can maintain a playable frame rate in most scenarios. Medium at 2560x1440 yields an average of 31 FPS, which is borderline but may be acceptable for slower-paced flight. High and Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as the average FPS falls below 30 at 1080p and below 25 at higher resolutions. The data clearly shows that this system is best suited for Low settings at 1080p, with Medium settings at 1080p as a secondary option for those who can tolerate occasional dips below 35 FPS.