Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates across the three resolutions reveal a system that scales predictably with pixel count, but with an interesting plateau at the higher settings. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination produces 116.8 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low preset drops this to 108.2 FPS, a reduction of roughly 7.4%. The final step to 3840x2160 at Low yields 100.4 FPS, another 7.2% decline. This gradual scaling pattern suggests that at Low settings, the workload is distributed such that neither the CPU nor the GPU is completely saturated, allowing for relatively smooth transitions between resolutions.

The picture changes considerably when examining the Ultra preset. At 1920x1080, the system produces 99.1 FPS. At 2560x1440, this falls to 89.8 FPS, a 9.4% drop. The jump to 3840x2160 brings the average down to 70.5 FPS, a more substantial 21.5% reduction from the 1440p result. This steeper decline at 4K Ultra indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor as the render load increases dramatically with pixel count and the highest quality assets. The data shows a clear inflection point: below 4K, the frame rate remains relatively high even at Ultra, but the 4K Ultra result demonstrates that the full visual fidelity comes at a significant performance cost.

The Medium and High presets occupy the expected middle ground, with the scaling pattern between them being notably consistent. At 1080p, Medium produces 109.9 FPS and High produces 96.6 FPS, a 12.1% gap. At 1440p, the gap narrows slightly: Medium at 102.5 FPS versus High at 89.9 FPS, an 12.3% difference. At 4K, Medium achieves 92.6 FPS while High drops to 73.2 FPS, a wider 21.0% margin. This widening gap at 4K reinforces the conclusion that the GPU's capabilities are being taxed more heavily as both resolution and settings increase, with the RTX 4080 SUPER's 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth becoming a more critical factor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER serves as the primary rendering engine in this configuration, and its specifications directly inform the measured results. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, the card provides 736.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is ample for the large texture sets and detailed geometry that Microsoft Flight Simulator presents at 4K resolution. The Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, includes 10,240 shading units and 112 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2550 MHz. These specifications translate to a pixel rate of 285.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 816.0 GTexel/s, figures that help explain the card's ability to maintain above 70 FPS even at the most demanding settings tested.

The GPU's benchmark standing reinforces its position. Its average benchmark score of 53610 places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 53489 (a 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S at 52505 (a 2.1% delta). The RTX 4080 SUPER leads these competitors by a narrow but consistent margin, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing it handling the game's heavy rendering load effectively. The card's FP32 compute capability of 52.22 TFLOPS and 80 RT cores also contribute to its performance, though Microsoft Flight Simulator's reliance on traditional rasterization means these features are less directly impactful than raw fill rate and memory bandwidth.

The GPU's performance in this game specifically shows it is well-matched to the task at 1440p and below, where it delivers over 89 FPS at every preset tested. At 4K, the card still manages respectable numbers, but the Ultra preset's 70.5 FPS result indicates that the graphics pipeline is approaching its limits. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6600 provides a synthetic reference point, though the real-world game data suggests the card performs admirably in this flight simulator's specific workload, which is known for its complex draw calls and extensive streaming of terrain data.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 acts as the processor in this pairing, and its characteristics have a measurable influence on the results, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU has more headroom. This 2000-series chip features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Built on the Zen architecture at GlobalFoundries' 12 nm process, it includes 16 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications are modest by modern standards, and the benchmark data reflects this.

In synthetic tests, the Ryzen 5 2600 achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11186 and a single-core score of 1579. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 13160, with a single-thread score of 2239. The processor's average benchmark score stands at 19616, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1345U at 19691 (a -0.4% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U at 19508 (a 0.6% delta), indicating the 2600 performs competitively with much newer mobile parts, though its architectural age shows in per-core performance.

The CPU's influence on the game's frame rates becomes apparent when examining the scaling from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p Low, the system produces 116.8 FPS, which is the highest result across all tested configurations. However, this is only 7.4% higher than the 4K Low result of 100.4 FPS, suggesting that at this preset, the CPU is not a severe bottleneck. The situation changes at Ultra settings, where the 1080p result of 99.1 FPS is actually higher than the 4K result of 70.5 FPS by 40.6%, indicating the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The Ryzen 5 2600's single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R20 single-core score of 663, is adequate for the game's simulation logic but does not prevent the GPU from being the dominant constraint in most scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured results provides a detailed picture of the system's performance across all combinations. At 1920x1080, the frame rates range from 116.8 FPS at Low to 99.1 FPS at Ultra, with Medium at 109.9 FPS and High at 96.6 FPS. The spread from lowest to highest preset is 17.7 FPS, a 15.2% difference, which shows that even at 1080p, the Ultra preset costs a meaningful amount of performance compared to Low.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results compress slightly. Low produces 108.2 FPS, Medium 102.5 FPS, High 89.9 FPS, and Ultra 89.8 FPS. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is negligible, at just 0.1 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional visual effects at 1440p are largely GPU-bound, but the card handles them without a significant additional penalty beyond what High already imposes.

At 3840x2160, the scaling becomes more pronounced. Low achieves 100.4 FPS, Medium 92.6 FPS, High 73.2 FPS, and Ultra 70.5 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 19.4 FPS, a 21.0% drop, which is the largest single-step decline observed in the entire dataset. This indicates that the High preset introduces a substantial increase in rendering complexity at 4K, likely through higher-resolution textures, more detailed shadows, and increased draw distances, all of which place greater demands on the GPU's memory subsystem and shading units.

The overall combo rank in this game is 429 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing this CPU-GPU pairing in the top 23.9% of all configurations. This ranking is consistent with the measured results showing strong performance at 1080p and 1440p, with playable frame rates even at 4K Ultra, though the system is clearly not among the highest-end pairings tested.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and the desired balance between visual fidelity and frame rate. For players using a 1920x1080 display, the Ultra preset at 99.1 FPS provides an excellent experience, delivering the highest visual quality while maintaining a frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset at 96.6 FPS offers a marginal 2.5 FPS improvement but sacrifices some visual polish, making Ultra the clear choice for 1080p users who prioritize image quality.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation becomes more nuanced. The Ultra preset achieves 89.8 FPS, while High produces 89.9 FPS, a difference of only 0.1 FPS. Given this negligible gap, the Ultra preset is the preferred option, as it provides the best visual quality at essentially no performance cost. The Medium preset at 102.5 FPS offers a 14.1% improvement over Ultra, which may be attractive for users with high-refresh-rate displays, but the visual compromise is substantial. For most 1440p users, Ultra represents the best balance.

At 3840x2160, the situation demands more careful consideration. The Ultra preset delivers 70.5 FPS, which is playable but may not feel entirely smooth on displays with high refresh rates. The High preset at 73.2 FPS offers a 3.8% improvement, while Medium jumps to 92.6 FPS, a 31.3% improvement over Ultra. For users who prioritize frame rate stability at 4K, the Medium preset provides a strong experience with significantly higher performance. However, for those who value the highest visual fidelity and can tolerate the lower frame rate, Ultra remains viable. The Low preset at 100.4 FPS is not recommended, as the visual degradation is severe and the performance gain over Medium is only 8.4%.

The data indicates that the RTX 4080 SUPER pairs best with the Ryzen 5 2600 at 1440p Ultra, where the system achieves 89.8 FPS, combining strong visual quality with a frame rate that exceeds the standard 60 FPS target. At 4K, the Medium preset offers the most balanced experience, while at 1080p, Ultra is the unequivocal choice. Users should prioritize Ultra at 1080p and 1440p, and consider Medium at 4K unless the highest fidelity is paramount.