Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 combination delivers a wide spread of frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, ranging from a demanding 44.2 FPS average at 4K Ultra to a fluid 135.4 FPS average at 1080p Low. The data set shows this pairing is highly resolution-sensitive, with the playable envelope shrinking dramatically as pixel count rises.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160 (4K), the measured results show a clear ceiling. The Low preset produces an average of 78.4 FPS, which is the only setting at this resolution to clear the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium drops to 58.4 FPS average, just under the line. High and Ultra are nearly identical at 44.2 FPS and 44.6 FPS respectively, indicating that beyond Medium, the RTX 3070’s 8 GB frame buffer and memory bandwidth become the limiting factor rather than the CPU. The gap between Low and Medium is 20 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is only 14.2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from added detail at 4K.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the picture improves substantially. Low runs at 107.3 FPS average, Medium at 83 FPS, High at 64.5 FPS, and Ultra at 60.8 FPS. All four presets stay above the 60 FPS threshold, though Ultra barely does so. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 46.5 FPS drop, which is proportionally less severe than at 4K. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra is only 3.7 FPS, suggesting that the most visually demanding settings at 1440p cost little extra frame rate compared to the step from Medium to High (18.5 FPS). This indicates the GPU is still the primary constraint at 1440p, but the CPU’s 12 cores and 24 threads provide enough headroom to avoid bottlenecking.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the combo performs best. Low delivers 135.4 FPS, Medium 103.9 FPS, High 79.7 FPS, and Ultra 74.5 FPS. Every preset exceeds 60 FPS by a wide margin. The drop from Low to Medium is 31.5 FPS, while Medium to High is 24.2 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 5.2 FPS. This pattern suggests that at 1080p, the CPU’s single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 1286) becomes more relevant, as the GPU is less burdened by resolution. The small delta between High and Ultra at 1080p (5.2 FPS) contrasts with the larger delta at 1440p (3.7 FPS), hinting that at 1080p, other system factors like memory bandwidth or driver overhead may play a role.

No min or max FPS values were recorded in the data, so the analysis relies solely on averages. The lack of frame time variance data means stutter or hitch behavior cannot be assessed, but the average figures alone show a playable experience at most settings below 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 1637 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 44th percentile of all tested hardware pairings. This is a middling rank, which might surprise given the CPU’s strong benchmark scores (92nd percentile among all CPUs) and the GPU’s respectable 61st percentile among all GPUs. The rank suggests that many other combinations—likely those with more powerful GPUs—achieve higher frame rates, especially at 4K where the RTX 3070 struggles.

The rank also implies that the CPU is not the bottleneck. The Ryzen 9 9900X’s multi-threaded performance (cinebench_r23_multicore score of 32172) is top-tier, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s engine appears to favor a balance between CPU and GPU. The 1080p Ultra result of 74.5 FPS is solid but not exceptional, indicating that even at lower resolutions, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth limit how far the CPU can push frames. Compared to the 74.5 FPS at 1080p Ultra, many higher-ranked combos likely feature GPUs with 12 GB or more VRAM, allowing higher texture quality without VRAM spillover.

The rank also reflects the game’s release date (2020-08-17) relative to the CPU’s launch (2024-08-14). The Ryzen 9 9900X is a newer part, but the RTX 3070 is from 2020 and is now end-of-life. This generational gap means the GPU is the weaker link, dragging the combo’s overall rank down despite the CPU’s modern architecture.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD EPYC 9015 scores 57555 in average benchmark (0.1% lower than the Ryzen 9 9900X’s 57498), and would behave nearly identically in CPU-bound scenarios. The AMD EPYC 7313 scores 57399 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115 (1.1% higher). The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58323 (1.4% higher). None of these would change the FPS numbers meaningfully in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game is not heavily multi-threaded beyond 8 cores; the 3dmark_8_threads score of 9114 is close to the max_threads score of 13929, showing diminishing returns past 8 threads.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 17083 in average benchmark (0.7% higher than the RTX 3070’s 17208—note this is a 0.7% difference, meaning the RX 7600 XT is slightly lower). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 17037 (1.0% lower), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17019 (1.1% lower). The NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17468 (1.5% higher). In practical terms, swapping the RTX 3070 for an RX 7600 XT would yield nearly identical FPS, likely within 1-2 FPS, given the close benchmark scores. The GTX 690 and HD 7970M are older and may lack modern driver optimizations for flight simulators, but their raw scores suggest similar throughput.

The takeaway is that this combo’s performance is tightly clustered with these alternatives. If a user had an RX 7600 XT instead, the 4K High result of 44.2 FPS would probably shift by less than 1 FPS. The CPU rivals would have zero practical impact, as the Ryzen 9 9900X already exceeds the game’s threading needs.

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 High is 44.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Only the Low preset at 4K clears 60 FPS, with an average of 78.4 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p?

A: The Ultra preset at 2560x1440 runs at 60.8 FPS average, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. This is the highest quality setting that remains playable, per the verdictByResolution data.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU matter more for this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary limit at higher resolutions. At 4K, reducing from Medium to Low gains 20 FPS (58.4 to 78.4), while at 1080p, the same reduction gains 31.5 FPS (103.9 to 135.4). This shows resolution scaling is steep, indicating GPU-bound behavior. The CPU’s high multi-core scores (32172 in cinebench_r23) do not translate to large FPS gains at 4K, confirming the GPU bottleneck.

Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM a problem?

A: The data cannot directly prove VRAM limitations, but the tiny difference between High (44.2 FPS) and Ultra (44.6 FPS) at 4K—only 0.4 FPS—suggests that beyond Medium, the GPU hits a hard performance wall, likely due to memory capacity or bandwidth. At 1080p, the High-to-Ultra gap is 5.2 FPS, indicating less pressure.

Q: How does this combo compare to the top 10% of tested systems?

A: The rank of 1637 out of 3714 places it in the 44th percentile. This means roughly 56% of tested combos perform better. The CPU is in the 92nd percentile, but the GPU’s 61st percentile pulls the combined rank down, highlighting that the GPU is the weaker component.

Q: What settings should I use for a smooth experience at 1080p?

A: All presets at 1920x1080 clear 60 FPS, with Ultra running at 74.5 FPS average. The data shows you can use Ultra without dropping below the playable threshold, though no min FPS data exists to confirm frame consistency.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS scaling across resolutions reveals a clear division of labor. At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck. The 4K Low result (78.4 FPS) is actually lower than the 1080p Ultra result (74.5 FPS), but the 4K Medium (58.4 FPS) and 4K High (44.2 FPS) show that each incremental setting increase costs roughly 14-20 FPS. This steep drop indicates the RTX 3070’s 8 GB VRAM and 256-bit memory bus are saturated at 4K, regardless of CPU capability. The Ryzen 9 9900X’s 12 cores provide no advantage here because the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The CPU begins to matter more, as evidenced by the fact that Medium (83 FPS) is closer to Low (107.3 FPS) than to High (64.5 FPS) in percentage terms. The 18.5 FPS drop from Medium to High suggests the GPU is still primary, but the CPU’s single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 1286) helps maintain playability at Ultra (60.8 FPS). If the CPU were weaker, the Ultra result might dip below 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the CPU’s role grows further. The 135.4 FPS Low result and 103.9 FPS Medium result show the GPU has headroom, and the CPU’s high clock speeds (boost 5.60 GHz) allow it to keep up. The 74.5 FPS Ultra result is only 5.2 FPS lower than High (79.7 FPS), suggesting that at 1080p, the game’s draw calls and simulation logic become more CPU-bound. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 12552 and the passmark_multithread score of 54643 indicate ample multi-threading, but the game likely uses fewer threads, making the single-core score of 1286 more relevant.

The resolution scaling factor—1080p Low at 135.4 FPS versus 4K Low at 78.4 FPS—shows a 57 FPS difference, which is a 42% drop. This is less than the 4x pixel count increase, indicating that the game is not purely pixel-bound; the CPU’s simulation workload remains constant across resolutions, so the FPS drop is not proportional to pixel count.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the only setting that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 78.4 FPS. Medium (58.4 FPS) and High (44.2 FPS) are below the threshold, so you must sacrifice visual quality to maintain smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is playable at 60.8 FPS average. This is the most demanding setting that clears 60 FPS, and it does so by only 0.8 FPS. If you want more margin, High (64.5 FPS) offers a slightly higher average, but Ultra is technically viable.

At 1920x1080, Ultra is the best choice, running at 74.5 FPS average. This gives you a 14.5 FPS buffer above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the recommended preset for the smoothest experience without lowering quality.

The data shows that at 4K, you are forced to Low, which is a significant compromise. At 1440p, Ultra is just barely playable, and at 1080p, you have full freedom to max out settings.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the experience depends heavily on resolution. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset clears 60 FPS (78.4 FPS average), so 4K gaming is limited to the lowest visual quality. At 2560x1440, all four presets—Low (107.3 FPS), Medium (83 FPS), High (64.5 FPS), and Ultra (60.8 FPS)—are playable, with Ultra just barely meeting the threshold. At 1920x1080, every preset exceeds 60 FPS, with Ultra delivering 74.5 FPS and Low reaching 135.4 FPS.

The verdict is clear: this combo is a capable 1080p and 1440p machine for Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it cannot handle 4K at anything above Low settings. The CPU is not the limiting factor—its benchmark scores are excellent—but the RTX 3070’s 8 GB VRAM and 2020-era architecture cap performance at higher resolutions. For users targeting 1440p, the Ultra preset at 60.8 FPS is the ceiling, and for 1080p, you can enjoy the game at maximum settings with room to spare. If 4K is a requirement, this hardware will force significant quality reductions, making it less suitable for that use case.