Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX presents a fascinating study in component balance within Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data reveals a system where the GPU’s immense memory bandwidth and the CPU’s modest core configuration interact in ways that shift the bottleneck depending on resolution and settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS to understand where the limits lie and what the experience implies for users.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern across all settings presets as resolution increases. At the Low preset, the system produces 191.4 FPS at 1920x1080, which drops to 152.2 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 109.8 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 42.6% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K, indicating that even at the lowest graphical load, the rendering pipeline is heavily influenced by pixel count.

The High preset exhibits a similar trend, with 111.3 FPS at 1080p falling to 88.7 FPS at 1440p and 65 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K here is 41.6%, nearly identical to the Low preset. This consistency suggests that the GPU is the primary scaling factor, as the relative performance loss tracks almost perfectly with the increase in pixel workload. The Ultra preset follows the same pattern: 105.3 FPS at 1080p, 84 FPS at 1440p, and 59.9 FPS at 4K, a 43.1% decline from the lowest to highest resolution.

Interestingly, the scaling from 1440p to 4K is steeper than from 1080p to 1440p across all settings. For instance, at Medium settings, the drop from 1080p (150.1 FPS) to 1440p (118.7 FPS) is 20.9%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K (84.4 FPS) is 28.9%. This accelerating decline at higher resolutions points directly to the GPU being the limiting factor, as the RX 7900 XTX's 24 GB frame buffer and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed by the sheer volume of pixel data. The data implies that at 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, but as resolution climbs, the GPU’s rendering capacity becomes the ceiling.

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

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX brings substantial hardware to this simulation, and the benchmark results reflect its strengths. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1929 MHz and a boost clock of 2498 MHz, with a game clock of 2365 MHz. These frequencies, combined with the 6144 shading units and 192 ROPs, allow for high pixel throughput, evidenced by the 479.6 GPixel/s pixel rate. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which renders vast landscapes and complex geometry, this raw compute power translates directly into playable frame rates at high resolutions.

The 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus is a defining characteristic here. With memory clocked at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) and bandwidth reaching 960.0 GB/s, the GPU can stream textures and terrain data without becoming a bottleneck. The measured results show that even at the Ultra preset in 4K, the system holds an average of 59.9 FPS, which is only slightly below the 60 FPS target. This suggests the VRAM capacity is sufficient for the most demanding settings, as a smaller frame buffer would likely cause stuttering or texture pop-in, which is not reflected in the average FPS data.

Comparing the GPU’s aggregate benchmark score, it sits at 44019 average, with a percentile of 85 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, which has a deltaPct of -2, meaning the RX 7900 XTX scores 2% higher on average. This placement indicates that the GPU is a top-tier performer, and the measured FPS in Flight Simulator aligns with that expectation. The GPU’s 61.39 TFLOPS of FP32 performance provides the computational muscle needed for the simulator’s physics and visual effects, making it the dominant component in this pairing at higher resolutions.

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, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its 16 MB of shared L3 cache is modest compared to larger desktop chips, but the high clock speeds help mitigate this. In the benchmark data, the CPU’s single-thread score in Cinebench R23 is 2943, and its multi-core score is 20851, which places it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is primarily to handle game logic, physics calculations, and draw call submissions. The measured FPS at 1080p reveals the CPU’s influence. At the Low preset, the system achieves 191.4 FPS, which is exceptionally high and suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at lower resolutions. However, when comparing the Low preset at 1080p (191.4 FPS) to the Ultra preset at 1080p (105.3 FPS), the gap is 86.1 FPS, which is larger than the difference seen at 4K between the same presets (109.8 vs 59.9 FPS, a 49.9 FPS gap). This indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is more involved, as the GPU is not as strained by pixel count, allowing the CPU’s processing speed to become more relevant.

The CPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, has an identical average score with a deltaPct of 0, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F is 0.3% higher. This places the 8400F in a competitive position for mid-range gaming, but its 6 cores may limit performance in scenarios with heavy multi-threaded workloads. The data shows that at 1440p and 4K, the CPU is less of a constraint, as the FPS scaling aligns more with GPU load. At 1440p Ultra, the system hits 84 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it drops to 59.9 FPS, which are both GPU-bound numbers. This suggests that while the CPU is adequate for high frame rates at lower resolutions, it is not the primary driver of performance at higher settings in this game.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Ryzen 5 8400F and RX 7900 XTX achieves a rank of 248 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 13.8% of all systems tested, which is a strong showing for a pairing that pairs a mid-range CPU with a high-end GPU. The rank reflects the system’s ability to deliver high frame rates across resolutions, particularly at 1440p and 4K, where the GPU’s power shines.

The ranking is notable because it suggests that the CPU does not significantly drag down the overall performance, despite being a 6-core part. In a game like Flight Simulator, which can be demanding on both CPU and GPU, this combo proves that the GPU can compensate for any CPU limitations at higher resolutions. The measured FPS at 4K High (65 FPS) and Ultra (59.9 FPS) are both playable, and the combo’s rank reflects this capability. Compared to other combos, this system sits well above the median, indicating that users can expect a smooth experience at high settings without the need for a more expensive processor.

The data implies that the combo is particularly well-suited for 1440p gaming, where it achieves 118.7 FPS at Medium and 84 FPS at Ultra, both of which are excellent for a flight simulator. The rank of 248 also suggests that there is headroom for improvement, but only with a more powerful CPU, which may not be necessary given the already high frame rates.

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

Examining the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance between visual fidelity and performance. At 1920x1080, it delivers 150.1 FPS, which is more than sufficient for smooth gameplay, while at 2560x1440, it maintains 118.7 FPS, and at 3840x2160, it drops to 84.4 FPS. These numbers are all above the 60 FPS threshold, providing a consistent experience without the need to sacrifice quality.

The High preset is also viable, particularly at 1440p where it hits 88.7 FPS, but at 4K it falls to 65 FPS, which is still acceptable. However, the Ultra preset at 4K produces 59.9 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS mark, and may result in occasional dips that could be noticeable in a simulator. For users who prioritize frame rate stability, Medium is the recommended choice, as it provides the largest buffer above 60 FPS across all resolutions.

The Low preset, while generating the highest frame rates (191.4 FPS at 1080p), likely sacrifices too much visual detail for a game that relies heavily on scenery and cockpit visuals. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot, offering a 43.9% performance increase over High at 4K (84.4 vs 65 FPS) while maintaining a level of quality that is likely acceptable for most users.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 191.4, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K with the Ultra preset?

A: At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the system achieves an average FPS of 59.9, which is just below the 60 FPS target.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the CPU plays a larger role, as evidenced by the 86.1 FPS difference between the Low (191.4 FPS) and Ultra (105.3 FPS) presets, which is a gap of 45% that indicates CPU limitations at lower resolutions.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 248 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the top 13.8% of all systems.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between 1440p and 4K at Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset yields 118.7 FPS, while at 3840x2160, it yields 84.4 FPS, a drop of 34.3 FPS or 28.9%.

Q: Which settings preset provides the best balance of performance across all resolutions?

A: The Medium preset provides the best balance, with all resolutions maintaining above 84 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience without dipping below 60 FPS.

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

The following table outlines the exact average FPS values measured for this combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 191.4 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 150.1 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 111.3 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 105.3 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 152.2 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 118.7 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 88.7 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 84.0 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 109.8 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 84.4 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 65.0 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 59.9 |

These numbers show a monotonic decrease in FPS as both resolution and settings quality increase. The largest single-step drop is from 1080p Low (191.4 FPS) to 1080p Medium (150.1 FPS), a 21.6% decrease, while the smallest drop is from 1440p High (88.7 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (84.0 FPS), a 5.3% decrease. This indicates that the performance cost of moving from High to Ultra is relatively minor at 1440p, but the cost of moving from Low to Medium is significant, likely due to the activation of more demanding rendering features. At 4K, the difference between High (65 FPS) and Ultra (59.9 FPS) is just 5.1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset is only marginally more demanding than High at this resolution.