Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces a clear pattern of results across resolutions and settings. The measured data shows a system that is well-balanced at 1080p, increasingly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, and one where the choice of graphics preset has a significant impact on the playability of the flight simulator. This analysis walks through the measured FPS data, the implications for settings, and how this specific hardware pairing ranks against other tested combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the Low preset, the system delivers an average of 127 FPS at 1920x1080, which drops to 102 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 75 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 41% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K at the lowest settings, which indicates that even when the graphical load is minimized, the rendering pipeline is still being pushed hard by the higher pixel counts. The transition from 1080p to 1440p costs 25 FPS, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 27 FPS, showing a near-linear decline in performance relative to the increase in pixel count.

Moving to the Medium preset, the same resolution scaling trend is evident but with a steeper drop. The average FPS at 1920x1080 is 99, falling to 79 at 2560x1440, and then to 59 at 3840x2160. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Medium is 40 FPS, which is a 40% reduction. The minimum FPS values recorded at Medium settings also illustrate the scaling impact: at 1080p the minimum is 84 FPS, at 1440p it is 68 FPS, and at 4K it drops to 50 FPS. This shows that not only does the average performance decline with resolution, but the frame time consistency also degrades, with the minimum FPS falling proportionally.

At the High preset, the averages are 74 FPS at 1080p, 60 FPS at 1440p, and 44 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is 40.5%, which is very similar to the Medium preset. This suggests that the relative cost of adding pixels remains constant regardless of whether the preset is Medium or High, pointing to a consistent GPU workload scaling. The Ultra preset shows the lowest absolute numbers, with 71 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is 29 FPS, or 40.8%, again confirming the uniform scaling pattern.

What this scaling data indicates about the limiting component is that the GPU is the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. The fact that the percentage drop in FPS from 1080p to 4K is nearly identical across all four presets—around 40-41%—strongly suggests that the graphics card’s rendering throughput is what determines the frame rate at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller FPS drop at higher resolutions, since the CPU workload would remain fairly constant while the GPU takes on more pixel processing. Instead, the consistent decline points to the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT being the component that saturates as pixel count rises. The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the game’s data at these settings, but the raw compute throughput of 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 is what limits 4K performance to sub-60 FPS averages on higher presets.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS values, the best experience for this combination depends heavily on the target resolution and the user’s preference for smoothness versus visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, the data shows that even the Ultra preset delivers an average of 71 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered smooth for a flight simulator. The High preset offers 74 FPS, and Medium reaches 99 FPS, while Low hits 127 FPS. For a flight simulator where camera panning and detailed scenery are common, the Medium preset at 1080p appears to be the sweet spot, providing a 99 FPS average with a minimum of 84 FPS, which ensures minimal stutter. The High preset is also viable, but the 74 FPS average comes with no recorded minimum FPS, so the Medium preset’s known floor of 84 FPS offers more frame time stability. The Ultra preset at 1080p, at 71 FPS, is only 3 FPS behind High, making it a reasonable choice if visual fidelity is prioritized, but the lack of a minimum FPS value means the frame pacing is less certain.

At 2560x1440, the recommendation shifts. The Low preset produces 102 FPS, which is excellent for competitive smoothness, but the Medium preset at 79 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS is the most balanced option. The High preset at 60 FPS is right at the edge of what is considered smooth, and the Ultra preset falls to 57 FPS, which may result in noticeable judder during fast scenery movement. For 1440p gaming, the Medium preset is the clear recommendation because it offers a high enough average to avoid perceived lag while maintaining a documented minimum of 68 FPS, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold. Pushing to High or Ultra at this resolution risks dipping below 60 FPS in demanding scenes, as the 60 FPS average at High suggests that some moments will be slower.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset achieves 75 FPS, which is smooth, but this requires sacrificing most graphical detail in a game known for its visual richness. The Medium preset averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS, meaning that while the average is just below 60, there will be scenes where the frame rate drops to the 50s. The High preset at 44 FPS and Ultra at 42 FPS are both below the smoothness threshold and would likely feel sluggish during flight maneuvers. For 4K, the data suggests that the Medium preset is the only viable option for a playable experience, but even then, the 50 FPS minimum indicates that users should expect occasional frame drops. The Low preset, while smoother, is a significant compromise in visual quality. Therefore, the best experience per the measured rows is Medium at 1080p and 1440p, and Medium at 4K only if the user can tolerate 50 FPS minimums; otherwise, Low at 4K is the safer choice for consistent smoothness.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with the High preset?

A: The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with the High preset is 74 FPS.

Q: Does this combination maintain 60 FPS at 1440p on Ultra settings?

A: No, the average FPS at 2560x1440 on Ultra is 57 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the lowest recorded minimum FPS across all settings and resolutions?

A: The lowest recorded minimum FPS is 50, which occurs at 3840x2160 with the Medium preset.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 127 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 71 FPS, making Low 56 FPS faster.

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K with the Medium preset?

A: The average FPS at 3840x2160 with the Medium preset is 59, with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 67 FPS.

Q: Is the frame rate at 1440p High better than the frame rate at 4K Low?

A: No, the 1440p High preset averages 60 FPS, which is lower than the 4K Low preset’s average of 75 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested hardware combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT holds a rank of 1674 out of 3714 tested combos. This places it in the 45th percentile of all combinations, meaning that roughly 55% of tested systems perform better in this specific game. The rank is a composite measure that accounts for the measured FPS across various resolutions and settings, and a mid-pack position suggests that this is a competent but not top-tier setup for flight simulation.

The CPU alone performs in the 77th percentile when compared to all CPUs in the benchmark database, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with an average score of 24964 and a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24935 with a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 with a 0.4% delta. The AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, which is 0.4% higher than the 8400F. This indicates that the CPU is a solid performer, sitting just slightly below the EPYC in raw compute but within 0.4% of its closest rivals. This strong CPU performance, however, does not translate into a top combo rank because Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily dependent on the GPU.

The GPU, on the other hand, is in the 71st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26011. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (score 25891, delta 0.5%), the AMD FirePro W7100 (score 25856, delta 0.6%), the AMD FirePro D700 (score 25842, delta 0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (score 25740, delta 1.1%). The RX 6750 XT is the highest-scoring among these four rivals, showing that it leads its immediate competitors by a small margin. The combination of a 77th percentile CPU and a 71st percentile GPU results in a 45th percentile combo rank, highlighting that the pairing is slightly less effective in this game than the individual component percentiles would suggest. This is likely because the game’s engine requires a more balanced or higher-end GPU to fully utilize the CPU’s capabilities, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture and uses the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, along with 40 ray tracing cores. The GPU has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. The GPU’s pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 416.0 GTexel/s, with an FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role is to render the detailed terrain, aircraft models, and weather effects. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K resolutions, where the average FPS at High and Ultra settings is 44 and 42, respectively. The 12 GB of VRAM is not the constraint, as the game’s data at these settings fits within that capacity, but the compute throughput is insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 4K with complex scenes. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is also adequate for the game’s streaming needs, as the performance scaling from 1080p to 4K is consistent, indicating that memory bandwidth is not causing an abnormal bottleneck.

The GPU’s percentile rank of 71 indicates that it outperforms 71% of all GPUs in general benchmarks, but its nearest rivals are all within 1.1% in average score, suggesting that it is in a very competitive performance tier. The boost clock of 2600 MHz is relatively high, which helps with 1080p performance where the GPU is not fully saturated. At 1920x1080, the GPU can deliver up to 127 FPS on Low settings, showing that it has headroom to run the game smoothly at lower resolutions. The FP32 throughput of 13.31 TFLOPS is the key specification that limits performance at higher resolutions, as the pixel fill rate and texture rate are sufficient for the game’s needs. Overall, the GPU is a mid-range performer that excels at 1080p and can manage 1440p with medium settings, but it struggles to maintain playable frame rates at 4K with high visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data is organized by resolution and settings, providing a detailed view of the system’s performance. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 127 FPS. The Medium preset produces an average of 99 FPS, with a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 113 FPS. The High preset averages 74 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 71 FPS. No minimum or maximum FPS values are recorded for the Low, High, or Ultra presets at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 102 FPS. The Medium preset averages 79 FPS, with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 91 FPS. The High preset averages 60 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 57 FPS. Similar to 1080p, only the Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum FPS values.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 75 FPS. The Medium preset averages 59 FPS, with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 67 FPS. The High preset averages 44 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 42 FPS. Again, the Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data.

These numbers show a clear hierarchy: Low is always the fastest, followed by Medium, then High, and Ultra is the slowest. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial, with a 28 FPS difference at 1080p, a 23 FPS difference at 1440p, and a 16 FPS difference at 4K. The gap between Medium and High is smaller: 25 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 15 FPS at 4K. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal: 3 FPS at 1080p, 3 FPS at 1440p, and 2 FPS at 4K. This indicates that the Ultra preset offers very little performance benefit over High, making High a better choice if the user wants to save some graphical load without a significant FPS penalty.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix, and built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. It features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU is part of the 8000 series and uses the AMD Socket AM5.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation logic, including flight physics, weather calculations, and the streaming of terrain data. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration is sufficient for the game’s threading model, as the 3DMark 16-thread score of 6091 and the max-thread score of 6165 show that the CPU can handle multi-threaded workloads efficiently. The single-thread performance is also strong, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 951 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943, which is important for the game’s main simulation thread.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 25005 places it in the 77th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.4% in average score, indicating that it is well-matched against similar processors. The boost clock of 4.70 GHz is high, which helps with the game’s single-threaded tasks, and the 16 MB of L3 cache is adequate for the game’s data access patterns. The memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s is reasonable for a DDR5 platform, and since the game does not appear to be memory-bandwidth-limited based on the FPS scaling data, this is not a bottleneck.

The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the FPS drops consistently with resolution regardless of settings. At 1080p, the CPU is more involved, and the system can achieve 127 FPS on Low, which suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to reach high frame rates. However, at 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU’s performance is less relevant to the final FPS. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance ensures that the game’s simulation runs smoothly, but the overall combo rank of 1674 out of 3714 is held back by the GPU’s limitations at 4K and high presets.