Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT pairing delivers a robust Microsoft Flight Simulator experience, with the data showing a clear bias toward higher resolutions. The combo ranks 651st out of 1,795 tested configurations, placing it comfortably in the top third of all systems tested. This analysis breaks down the CPU and GPU roles, resolution scaling, and specific performance numbers to help you understand what this hardware can do.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. This is a modern desktop chip with a 65 W TDP, DDR5 memory support, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU’s benchmark scores show a strong single-threaded performance, which is crucial for flight simulators that often rely on heavy per-core physics and scenery processing.

Looking at the synthetic benchmarks, the 8400F achieves a single-thread score of 951 in 3DMark and 2,943 in Cinebench R23 single-core. These numbers place it above many older high-end chips, and its 82nd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms it is a capable part. In multi-threaded workloads, the processor scores 6,165 in 3DMark max threads and 20,851 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is respectable for a 6-core part.

The nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (average score 25,057, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25,099, -0.1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24,993, 0.3% delta). The 8400F sits almost exactly between these parts, showing that its computational throughput is on par with an older 8-core and a newer 6-core alternative. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, this means the CPU will not bottleneck the GPU in most scenarios, especially at higher resolutions where the graphics card becomes the primary limiter.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is a substantial graphics card with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. It is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a boost clock of 2430 MHz and a game clock of 2124 MHz. The GPU has 3,840 shading units and 60 ray accelerators. This card is designed for high-refresh 1440p gaming and comfortable 4K performance in many titles.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 7800 XT scores 24,176 in Passmark G3D and 143,060 in Geekbench Vulkan, placing it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in these tests include the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (average score 32,540, 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA P104-100 (32,747, -0.4% delta). While these are workstation or niche cards, the delta values confirm the 7800 XT’s raw compute is well above average.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 16 GB VRAM is a significant asset. The game can load large textures and terrain data, and having this much memory prevents stuttering from VRAM overflow at 4K with high detail. The GPU’s high bandwidth also helps stream scenery quickly as you fly, which is visible in the measured FPS data where the card maintains playable frame rates even at 4K Ultra settings.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern of scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low settings, the combo hits 146 FPS, which drops to 118.6 FPS at 1440p and 89.1 FPS at 4K. This is a 39% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. At Ultra settings, the drop is more dramatic: 81.2 FPS at 1080p falls to 63.9 FPS at 1440p and then to 50.9 FPS at 4K, a 37% reduction overall.

The scaling behavior indicates that the system is well-balanced. At 1080p, the CPU is likely the primary limiter, as the FPS does not scale linearly with resolution — the jump from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings only costs 27.4 FPS, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 29.5 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is increasingly stressed as resolution rises. At Ultra settings, the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck, with 4K performance dropping to just above 50 FPS. The data shows that this combo is suitable for 1440p high-refresh gaming and can handle 4K at medium to high settings, but not at maximum detail.

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

1080p: At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 146 FPS on Low, 112.5 FPS on Medium, 86.2 FPS on High, and 81.2 FPS on Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is only 5 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds significant visual load without a proportional FPS gain. Low to Medium is a larger step, costing 33.5 FPS.

1440p: At 2560x1440, performance drops to 118.6 FPS on Low, 92.1 FPS on Medium, 70.2 FPS on High, and 63.9 FPS on Ultra. The 1440p data shows a more linear scaling pattern, with each preset step costing roughly 20-30 FPS. High to Ultra is again a smaller jump, at just 6.3 FPS.

4K: At 3840x2160, the combo produces 89.1 FPS on Low, 66.4 FPS on Medium, 52.5 FPS on High, and 50.9 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show that the GPU is heavily taxed, especially at High and Ultra. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 1.6 FPS, meaning the Ultra preset provides no meaningful benefit at this resolution for this hardware.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank for this pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator is 651 out of 1,795 tested configurations. This puts it in the 64th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms nearly two-thirds of the combinations tested. This rank reflects a balanced pairing where neither component is severely underpowered for the other.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the 651st position places this system above many older high-end GPUs paired with mid-range CPUs, but below the absolute top-tier 4K rigs. The data suggests that this combo is a strong 1440p performer and a capable 4K system for this game, though it will not push maximum frame rates at 4K Ultra. The rank also indicates that the CPU’s 82nd percentile and GPU’s 76th percentile combine to create a system that avoids severe bottlenecks, which is critical for a simulation title that can be demanding on both fronts.

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

Based on the measured FPS rows, the best experience depends on your target resolution and refresh rate. For 1080p, the Medium preset at 112.5 FPS is the sweet spot, offering a smooth experience well above 60 FPS. If you have a high-refresh 144Hz monitor, the Low preset at 146 FPS is the only way to reach that frame rate, but it sacrifices visual quality. The High preset at 86.2 FPS is also viable, but Ultra at 81.2 FPS provides diminishing returns.

For 1440p, the Medium preset at 92.1 FPS is excellent, keeping you above 90 FPS for a fluid experience. High at 70.2 FPS is still smooth and offers better visuals, but you will drop below the 75Hz refresh threshold. Ultra at 63.9 FPS is playable but not ideal for fast motion. The Low preset at 118.6 FPS is unnecessary unless you are chasing maximum frame rates.

For 4K, the Medium preset at 66.4 FPS is the recommended choice, as it maintains a playable frame rate while offering decent visual fidelity. High at 52.5 FPS is borderline, and Ultra at 50.9 FPS is not worth the performance cost since it only gains 1.6 FPS over High. Low at 89.1 FPS is smooth but visually sparse for a simulator where immersion matters. The data clearly shows that Medium settings at 4K provide the best balance of frame rate and quality for this combo.