Microsoft Flight Simulator

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 2 architecture with a 3.60 GHz base clock and a 4.20 GHz boost clock. This CPU sits in the 71st percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 17,035. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Core i7-1260P scores 17,007 (0.2% higher), the Intel Core i5-11400 scores 17,067 (0.2% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7742 scores 16,998 (0.2% higher). The data shows this CPU is well-positioned for gaming workloads, though its single-thread score of 696 in 3DMark and 2,124 in Cinebench R23 indicate it is not a top-tier performer for lightly-threaded tasks.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are relevant because flight simulation titles tend to have significant simulation overhead beyond just rendering. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache helps with the large world-streaming datasets this game uses. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR4 is adequate but not exceptional, which can matter when the sim is loading terrain and aircraft data. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 4,605 shows the CPU scales reasonably well across all cores, while the 8-thread score of 3,844 suggests diminishing returns beyond that point.

At 1080p with Low settings, the CPU is likely the limiting factor, as the measured 135 FPS average is the highest of any configuration tested. At 4K Ultra, the CPU's contribution is less critical because the GPU becomes the bottleneck, but the CPU still needs to keep up with the simulation's logic. The benchmark results indicate this processor can sustain the game's demands without becoming a severe constraint, especially when paired with a high-end GPU. The 71st percentile ranking means it outperforms a majority of CPUs, but it is not in the top tier — the nearest rivals (all within 0.2% in average score) show this is a competitive mid-range part.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process node and packs 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU runs at a base clock of 2205 MHz with a boost clock of 2505 MHz, and its memory operates at an effective 22.4 Gbps. With 9,728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs, this card is a formidable rendering powerhouse. Its FP32 performance of 48.74 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s explain why it can push high frame rates even at demanding resolutions.

In the benchmark rankings, the RTX 4080 sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 54,247. Its nearest rivals are extremely close: the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54,209 (0.1% higher), while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54,828 (1.1% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55,698 (2.6% lower). This tells us the RTX 4080 performs essentially identically to its direct successor in these tests, and it is actually slightly behind some lower-tier Radeon cards in raw benchmark scores — though those cards have different architectural strengths.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 16 GB VRAM capacity is a key asset. The game's high-resolution textures for terrain, aircraft, and airports can consume significant memory, and 16 GB ensures the card does not run out of VRAM even at 4K with Ultra settings. The measured FPS data confirms the GPU's strength: at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 70, while at 1080p Ultra it reaches 109 FPS. The GPU's high bandwidth and pixel rate allow it to maintain playable frame rates even in the most demanding scenarios. The 86th percentile ranking indicates this is a top-tier GPU, and the close proximity of its rivals suggests that real-world differences between these cards are minimal in synthetic benchmarks.

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

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings preset delivers the best experience for this CPU-GPU combination. At 4K resolution, the Medium preset yields an average of 97 FPS with a minimum of 83 and a maximum of 112 — this is the only 4K configuration with a recorded minimum FPS, indicating stable performance. The High preset at 4K averages 73 FPS, while Ultra drops to 70 FPS. The Low preset averages 114 FPS but sacrifices visual fidelity.

At 1440p, the Medium preset again stands out with an average of 115 FPS (min 98, max 132). High averages 99 FPS, and Ultra averages 95 FPS. Low hits 126 FPS. At 1080p, Medium averages 124 FPS (min 105, max 142), while High averages 111 FPS and Ultra averages 109 FPS. Low reaches 135 FPS.

The pattern is consistent: Medium settings provide a significant FPS boost over High and Ultra while maintaining acceptable visual quality. The delta between Medium and High is substantial — at 4K, it is a 24 FPS improvement (97 vs 73), at 1440p it is 16 FPS (115 vs 99), and at 1080p it is 13 FPS (124 vs 111). The jump from Medium to Low is smaller, suggesting diminishing returns on lower settings.

For the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, Medium is the recommended preset. It provides the highest minimum FPS of any settings tier (83 at 4K, 98 at 1440p, 105 at 1080p), which is critical for a flight simulator where smoothness matters more than peak FPS. The Ultra preset only delivers marginal gains over High but costs 3-4 FPS at every resolution, making it the least efficient choice. Users who prioritize frame rate above all else should select Low, but the data shows Medium offers the most stable experience without excessive visual compromise.

# FAQ

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its closest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The two cards are nearly identical in performance. The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54,209 in the average benchmark, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 4080's 54,247. This difference is within measurement error, so users should not expect any meaningful FPS variation between these cards in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What is the best resolution to run this game with this hardware?

A: The data shows all three tested resolutions produce playable frame rates. At 4K with Medium settings, the average FPS is 97, while 1440p Medium averages 115 FPS and 1080p Medium averages 124 FPS. The choice depends on the user's display, but 4K Medium offers a solid experience if the monitor supports it.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 135, which is the highest recorded. When the resolution drops, the CPU has to feed the GPU faster, and the 6-core Ryzen 5 3600 appears to be the limiting factor at these lower settings. At 4K Ultra, the FPS drops to 70, indicating the GPU becomes the primary constraint.

Q: How much FPS is gained by dropping from Ultra to Medium settings?

A: At 4K, the gain is 27 FPS (from 70 to 97). At 1440p, the gain is 20 FPS (from 95 to 115). At 1080p, the gain is 15 FPS (from 109 to 124). These are substantial improvements that make Medium the recommended setting.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The benchmark data shows no VRAM-related issues at any resolution or settings preset. The RTX 4080's 16 GB of GDDR6X memory is enough to handle the highest textures in Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra, as evidenced by the playable 70 FPS average.

Q: How does this CPU-GPU combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 636th out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the top 17% of all configurations. This indicates it is a strong pairing for this game, though not at the very top of the performance hierarchy.

# Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals clear scaling patterns across resolutions. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 124 at 1080p to 115 at 1440p, then to 97 at 4K. This represents a 7.3% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 15.7% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 21.8%. At High settings, the progression is 111 FPS at 1080p, 99 FPS at 1440p, and 73 FPS at 4K — a 10.8% drop to 1440p and a 26.3% drop to 4K, for a total of 34.2%. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 109 FPS at 1080p, 95 FPS at 1440p, and 70 FPS at 4K — drops of 12.8% and 26.3%, totaling 35.8%.

These scaling patterns indicate that the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as a bottleneck at higher resolutions. The fact that the FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is relatively modest (7-13% depending on settings) suggests the CPU is still contributing at 1080p, but the larger drops from 1440p to 4K (16-26%) show the GPU is being pushed harder. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 135 at 1080p to 126 at 1440p (6.7%) and then to 114 at 4K (9.5%), with a total drop of 15.6% — the smallest percentage decline across all settings.

This pattern reveals that at Low settings, the CPU is more of a limiting factor, because the GPU has less work to do per frame. As settings increase, the GPU workload grows, and the RTX 4080's performance becomes the primary constraint. The 4K Ultra result of 70 FPS shows the GPU is nearing its limits, while the 1080p Low result of 135 FPS suggests the CPU is capping performance at that point.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 135 FPS, Medium produces 124 FPS with a minimum of 105 and a maximum of 142, High produces 111 FPS, and Ultra produces 109 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 26 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium (11 FPS). The gap between High and Ultra is just 2 FPS, indicating that Ultra offers negligible visual improvements for a measurable performance cost at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS figures are: Low at 126 FPS, Medium at 115 FPS (min 98, max 132), High at 99 FPS, and Ultra at 95 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 31 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is 16 FPS, which is the most significant jump between consecutive settings at this resolution. The minimum FPS of 98 at Medium settings is still above 60 FPS, providing a comfortable margin for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are: Low at 114 FPS, Medium at 97 FPS (min 83, max 112), High at 73 FPS, and Ultra at 70 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 44 FPS, which is the largest across all resolutions. The drop from Medium to High is 24 FPS — the single largest settings-based performance hit in the entire dataset. This demonstrates that at 4K, the High and Ultra presets put substantial strain on the GPU, while Medium remains a sweet spot.

The minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings: 105 at 1080p, 98 at 1440p, and 83 at 4K. These are the only data points that show frame time stability, and they all remain comfortably above 60 FPS. The fact that minimums are only provided for Medium suggests this is the setting where the system exhibits the most consistent performance, reinforcing the recommendation to use Medium for the best experience.