Microsoft Flight Simulator

This PC combination places 68th out of 3,714 tested configurations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, putting it in the top 2% of all tested combos. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X sits at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, so both components are high-tier performers individually and the combination follows that pattern. The benchmark data shows this system is not just marginally playable but has considerable headroom: even the most demanding Ultra preset stays well above 60 FPS at every resolution tested. What stands out is the consistency of the scaling — from 1080p to 4K, the system maintains playable frame rates across all four settings presets, which is rare for a flight simulator that is known to stress both CPU and GPU heavily.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 68 out of 3,714 tested combinations places this system in the 98th percentile of all configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a top-tier result, though not the absolute best — there are 67 other combinations that score higher. The CPU's percentile rank of 91 and the GPU's percentile rank of 92 are closely matched, meaning neither component is a bottleneck in general compute terms; both are near the top of their respective product stacks. The average benchmark score for the CPU is 53,288, while the GPU averages 79,842, and both sit comfortably above the median of all tested hardware.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 0.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 7313P and 0.6% higher than the Intel Xeon 634, but it trails the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 by 0.3% and the Intel Core i7-14700F by 0.6%. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the 7900X sits in a very tightly packed performance cluster — for this game, the CPU's 12 cores and 24 threads with Zen 4 architecture deliver compute results that are effectively interchangeable with those four rivals. On the GPU side, the RTX 5090 outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB by 0.3%, the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB by 0.6%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT by 1.1%, while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 1.4%. Again, the deltas are small, but the GPU's average score of 79,842 is substantially higher than the CPU's average score, reflecting the GPU-heavy nature of modern flight simulation rendering.

The rank of 68 out of 3,714 is particularly meaningful because it indicates that only about 1.8% of tested combinations achieve higher frame rates in this specific game. For a simulator that pushes both processor and graphics hardware hard, this is an elite result. The data suggests that this combo would handle not just the default settings but also demanding add-on scenery and weather scenarios without dropping below playable thresholds, though the measured FPS data only covers the stock game configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160 (4K), the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which runs at an average of 76.3 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available, and it clears the 60 FPS threshold by a comfortable 16.3 FPS margin. The High preset runs at 79.3 FPS, Medium at 107.3 FPS, and Low at 138.5 FPS, so all four presets are playable at 4K, but Ultra is the recommended choice since it delivers the best visual quality while still maintaining a healthy frame rate.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), Ultra is again the best playable preset, achieving an average of 105.4 FPS. This is a much larger margin above the 60 FPS threshold — 45.4 FPS of headroom — meaning there is significant room for future content updates or more demanding add-ons. The High preset runs at 112.3 FPS, Medium at 148.4 FPS, and Low at 190.9 FPS. At this resolution, the system is effectively overkill for the stock game, as even the heaviest preset leaves the frame rate in triple digits.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), Ultra runs at an average of 136.3 FPS, which is the best playable setting. The lower presets are progressively faster: High at 143.5 FPS, Medium at 187.8 FPS, and Low at 224.2 FPS. At 1080p, the system is clearly CPU-limited in the lower presets, as the frame rate scaling from Low to Ultra is much smaller than the resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K at the same preset. For example, at Low settings, moving from 1080p to 4K drops the frame rate from 224.2 to 138.5 FPS, a 38% reduction, while at Ultra settings the drop is from 136.3 to 76.3 FPS, a 44% reduction.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with maximum settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the system achieves an average of 76.3 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. All four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at this resolution.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: The Ultra preset at 2560x1440 runs at an average of 105.4 FPS, making it the best quality option that stays well above 60 FPS. Every preset at this resolution clears the playable threshold, with Low reaching 190.9 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 0.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 7313P and 0.6% higher than the Intel Xeon 634. It trails the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 by 0.3% and the Intel Core i7-14700F by 0.6%. All deltas are within one percentage point.

Q: Is the GPU the stronger component in this combo?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 79,842, compared to the CPU's 53,288, and the GPU ranks at the 92nd percentile versus the CPU's 91st. The performance difference is notable, but both are top-tier parts.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with the High preset, the average frame rate is 143.5 FPS. This is more than double the 60 FPS playable threshold, leaving substantial headroom.

Q: Does the system maintain 60 FPS at all tested resolutions?

A: Yes. The verdict data shows all playable settings at every resolution — 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 — all stay at or above 60 FPS. The lowest recorded average is 76.3 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest performance equivalents are all within a single percentage point of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X's average score of 53,288. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53,206, which is 0.2% lower. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53,469, which is 0.3% higher. The Intel Xeon 634 scores 52,974, which is 0.6% lower. The Intel Core i7-14700F scores 53,620, which is 0.6% higher. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, any of these CPUs would deliver effectively identical compute performance, so if a system builder is looking at the 7900X, these alternatives would behave almost exactly the same in this game.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090's average score of 79,842 is bracketed by four alternatives. The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB scores 79,605 (0.3% lower), the Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB scores 79,396 (0.6% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT scores 78,940 (1.1% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 80,959 (1.4% higher). These deltas mean that swapping the RTX 5090 for any of these would change the frame rate in Microsoft Flight Simulator by roughly one FPS or less at the measured settings. The practical takeaway is that the 5090 is not uniquely positioned — several other high-end GPUs provide nearly identical performance in this specific workload.

The interesting note is that the CPU rivals include both server processors (EPYC, Xeon) and a workstation GPU (Tesla, Radeon Pro), which reflects the fact that Microsoft Flight Simulator's benchmark data includes a wide range of hardware. For a gaming-focused build, the Core i7-14700F is the closest consumer alternative to the 7900X, while the RX 6850M XT is the closest gaming-oriented GPU alternative.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the system produces the following average frame rates: Low settings run at 138.5 FPS, Medium at 107.3 FPS, High at 79.3 FPS, and Ultra at 76.3 FPS. The step-down from Low to Medium is 31.2 FPS, from Medium to High is 28.0 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 3.0 FPS. This suggests that the High to Ultra transition is nearly free in performance terms, while the Low to Medium jump carries the biggest cost.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 190.9 FPS, Medium at 148.4 FPS, High at 112.3 FPS, and Ultra at 105.4 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 42.5 FPS, between Medium and High is 36.1 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 6.9 FPS. The pattern is consistent with 4K — the biggest performance hit comes from moving out of Low settings, while Ultra is only slightly more demanding than High.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low at 224.2 FPS, Medium at 187.8 FPS, High at 143.5 FPS, and Ultra at 136.3 FPS. The Low to Medium gap is 36.4 FPS, Medium to High is 44.3 FPS, and High to Ultra is 7.2 FPS. At 1080p, the Medium to High transition is the most expensive, which differs from the higher resolutions where Low to Medium was the largest step.

Looking at resolution scaling at the same preset: at Low settings, 1080p to 1440p drops the frame rate from 224.2 to 190.9 (a 14.9% reduction), and 1440p to 4K drops it from 190.9 to 138.5 (a 27.4% reduction). At Ultra settings, the same resolution changes drop frame rates from 136.3 to 105.4 (a 22.7% reduction) and then from 105.4 to 76.3 (a 27.6% reduction). The data shows the system scales more gracefully at lower settings when moving from 1080p to 1440p, but the 1440p to 4K jump is consistently around a 27% frame rate penalty regardless of preset.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates across every tested resolution and preset. At 3840x2160, all four settings presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable, with Ultra running at 76.3 FPS, which is 16.3 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold. The best settings at this resolution are Ultra, since there is no need to sacrifice quality for frame rate. At 2560x1440, the same situation applies: all presets clear 60 FPS, and Ultra runs at 105.4 FPS, providing 45.4 FPS of headroom. At 1920x1080, Ultra runs at 136.3 FPS, leaving more than double the playable threshold as margin.

The data indicates that this system is not merely adequate for the game — it is overqualified. The lowest average frame rate recorded in the entire measurement set is 76.3 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is still well above the playable threshold. No combination of resolution and settings in the tested matrix drops below 60 FPS. The practical implication is that users can enable the highest quality preset at their native resolution and expect smooth performance, with the only caveat being that the measured data does not account for third-party add-ons, which are common in flight simulation and could reduce frame rates.

For users with a 4K display, the Ultra preset at 76.3 FPS is the best choice. For 1440p displays, Ultra at 105.4 FPS offers substantial headroom for future content. For 1080p displays, Ultra at 136.3 FPS is the obvious selection. There is no scenario in the measured data where the system forces a compromise below Ultra settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals how the CPU and GPU split the workload in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system hits 224.2 FPS, which is far beyond what the GPU alone could render if it were the sole bottleneck — this indicates the CPU is fully capable of feeding the GPU at this resolution and preset. However, the scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low (224.2 to 138.5 FPS, a 38.2% drop) shows that the GPU becomes progressively more stressed as resolution increases, even at the lowest quality settings.

The resolution scaling at Ultra settings is more revealing. From 1080p Ultra at 136.3 FPS to 1440p Ultra at 105.4 FPS is a 22.7% drop, and from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra at 76.3 FPS is a 27.6% drop. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to stay roughly flat across resolutions at the same preset, since the CPU workload does not change much with resolution. The fact that frame rates drop substantially with each resolution increase means the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions and higher presets.

Conversely, the preset scaling at a fixed resolution shows where the CPU matters. At 4K, moving from Low to Ultra drops the frame rate from 138.5 to 76.3 FPS, a 44.9% reduction. At 1080p, the same preset change drops the frame rate from 224.2 to 136.3 FPS, a 39.2% reduction. The 1080p drop is proportionally smaller, which suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is starting to become a co-limiter — the GPU is so fast that the CPU cannot fully exploit the lower resolution's reduced pixel workload. The 7900X's 12 cores and 24 threads are ample for the game's simulation logic, but the benchmark data shows that at 1080p Low, the system is hitting a ceiling around 224 FPS that is likely CPU-bound.

At 1440p, the system appears to be in a balanced zone. The frame rates are high enough (105.4 to 190.9 FPS across presets) that neither component is clearly dominant, but the resolution scaling pattern — a 22.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra — indicates the GPU is the primary scaling factor. At 4K, the GPU is the clear bottleneck, with the CPU's fast single-thread and multi-thread performance ensuring that simulation logic never holds back the renderer. Overall, the data shows that for this game, the GPU matters more at 4K and at high presets, while the CPU becomes more relevant at 1080p and low presets, where the system approaches its maximum frame rate ceiling.