Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the heaviest mainstream games you can install, and this pairing — an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X feeding an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 — lands in an interesting spot for it. The data shows a CPU sitting in the 91st percentile of all tested processors paired with a GPU in the 61st percentile, which tells you immediately where the imbalance lies. This combo ranks 2017 out of 3714 tested configurations in this specific game, placing it just past the midpoint. What follows is a breakdown of what that means in practice, resolution by resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

On the CPU side, the Ryzen 9 5950X's average benchmark score of 51947 puts it in remarkably tight company. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX averages 52073, a deltaPct of just -0.2 relative to the 5950X, meaning the two chips are effectively interchangeable in aggregate throughput. The AMD EPYC 8124P sits at 52121 with a deltaPct of -0.3, and the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52301 with a deltaPct of -0.7 — all three within a fraction of a percent. The Intel Core i9-13900F, at 51730 with a deltaPct of 0.4, is marginally behind but still essentially equivalent. Anyone running one of these four processors should expect Flight Simulator behavior very close to what's measured here, provided the GPU matches.

The GPU picture is different in character. The RTX 4060's average benchmark score of 17639 places it near the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17666 (deltaPct -0.2), the AMD Radeon 780M at 17588 (deltaPct 0.3), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17551 (deltaPct 0.5), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17509 (deltaPct 0.7). The spread across all four rivals is under one percent, so any of these graphics solutions would deliver a statistically similar experience in aggregate benchmark terms. That the 4060 clusters with this group at the 61st percentile underscores that the graphics card — not the 5950X — is the component defining this build's ceiling in Flight Simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The resolution scaling data tells a clear story about which component is doing the work. At 1920x1080 Ultra, the combo averages 63.8 FPS. Dropping to Low at the same resolution raises that to 119.5 FPS — nearly doubling the frame rate by cutting visual settings alone. That kind of sensitivity to preset changes at a fixed resolution is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario: the RTX 4060 has headroom being spent on pixels, and the moment you reduce the per-frame pixel cost, the frame rate climbs steeply.

The Ryzen 9 5950X, by contrast, never appears to be the constraint in this dataset. With 16 cores and 32 threads, a 4.90 GHz boost clock, and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26017 paired with a single-core score of 1614, it brings far more CPU performance than Flight Simulator demands at these frame rates. Its Geekbench single-core score of 2083 and PassMark single-thread score of 3470 sit at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, and none of the measured FPS ceilings suggest the processor is throttling the GPU's potential.

Between resolutions, the pattern confirms GPU primacy at higher pixel counts. Moving from 1080p Ultra (63.8 FPS) to 1440p Ultra costs only 7.9 percent of the frame rate (down to 55.8), but stepping to 4K Ultra drops it to 40.2 — a 37 percent decline from 1080p. The RTX 4060's 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth is what's being squeezed here. At 1080p, the card can nearly keep pace; at 4K, it's clearly out of its depth at elevated presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

All figures below are measured averages for this exact pairing. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not captured in this dataset.

At 1920x1080:

• Ultra: 63.8 FPS
• High: 72.1 FPS
• Medium: 94.9 FPS
• Low: 119.5 FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Ultra: 55.8 FPS
• High: 58.6 FPS
• Medium: 72.6 FPS
• Low: 95.4 FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Ultra: 40.2 FPS
• High: 41.4 FPS
• Medium: 53.2 FPS
• Low: 69.1 FPS

A few observations worth pulling out of these numbers. First, the gap between Ultra and High is small at every resolution — 8.3 FPS at 1080p, 2.8 FPS at 1440p, and a mere 1.2 FPS at 4K. High settings deliver nearly identical performance to Ultra, so the Ultra preset buys very little at heavy cost. Second, Medium is where the frame rate curve bends upward sharply: 1440p Medium clears 60 FPS at 72.6, while 1440p High falls just short at 58.6. Third, at 4K, even Medium (53.2 FPS) misses the 60 FPS threshold, and only Low (69.1) gets there. Finally, the 1080p numbers are genuinely strong — triple digits at Low (119.5) and comfortably above 60 at every preset including Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

Against the full field of 3714 tested CPU-plus-GPU combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 2017th. That places it almost exactly at the median — better than roughly half the configurations on record, worse than the other half. For a game notorious for punishing hardware, a mid-field ranking is respectable, but it reflects the RTX 4060's position in the 61st GPU percentile rather than any weakness in the 5950X at the 91st CPU percentile.

The rank also contextualizes the local alternatives. Because the 4060's average score is within one percent of cards like the Radeon 780M and Radeon Pro 560, similar-tier GPU swaps would likely shift the rank only marginally. A materially better rank in this game would require a materially faster GPU; swapping the CPU to something like the Core i7-14700 (deltaPct -0.7) would, on this evidence, change almost nothing.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator — with conditions tied directly to resolution.

At 1920x1080, every preset clears the 60 FPS playable threshold: Low at 119.5, Medium at 94.9, High at 72.1, and Ultra at 63.8. Ultra is the best playable setting here, and while 63.8 FPS is above the bar, the margin is thin enough that dips below 60 are plausible in the heaviest scenes. If consistency matters, High at 72.1 is the smarter lock.

At 2560x1440, two presets clear 60: Low at 95.4 and Medium at 72.6. Medium is the recommended setting — it's the best preset that stays above the threshold, and High at 58.6 misses the cut by a hair.

At 3840x2160, only Low clears the bar at 69.1 FPS. Medium (53.2), High (41.4), and Ultra (40.2) all fall short. 4K is technically playable on this hardware, but only with settings stripped down.

The practical summary: this is a solid 1080p machine for Flight Simulator at any preset, a capable 1440p machine at Medium, and a marginal 4K machine at best. The Ryzen 9 5950X is never the problem — the RTX 4060's 8 GB frame buffer and 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth set the ceiling.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 9 5950X + RTX 4060 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 69.1 FPS. Medium (53.2), High (41.4), and Ultra (40.2) all fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best-looking setting that stays above 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: Medium, at 72.6 FPS average. High misses the threshold at 58.6 FPS, so Medium is the top playable preset at 2560x1440.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU. The RTX 4060 sits in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the 5950X sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs — and the steep FPS gains from lowering presets at fixed resolutions confirm the graphics card sets the ceiling.

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

A: It ranks 2017 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator — essentially a median result, better than about half the field.

Q: Is Ultra worth using at 1080p?

A: It clears 60 FPS at 63.8, but only barely, and it costs 8.3 FPS versus High (72.1). High is the more reliable choice; the visual gap between the two presets is not reflected in a proportional performance gap at any resolution.

Q: Would a CPU upgrade improve Flight Simulator performance on this build?

A: Unlikely, based on the data. Rivals within a fraction of a percent of the 5950X's average score — the Core Ultra 5 235HX, EPYC 8124P, i7-14700, and i9-13900F — would behave near-identically in aggregate, and the measured frame rates point to GPU limits, not CPU limits.