Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D produces a fascinating dataset. The measured results show a configuration that is overwhelmingly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, yet reveals the CPU's capabilities as a limiting factor at 1080p. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, interprets the role of each component, and provides actionable recommendations based strictly on the provided data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the performance drop tells a significant story about system balance. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the combo averages 142 FPS. Moving to 1440p Ultra, that figure drops to 114 FPS, a reduction of approximately 19.7%. The jump to 4K Ultra yields an average of 84 FPS, which is a further 26.3% decrease from the 1440p result and a 40.8% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline indicates that the rendering load is scaling heavily with pixel count, which is expected for a flight simulator with vast draw distances and complex scenery.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For the High preset, the average FPS goes from 149 at 1080p, to 120 at 1440p, and finally to 88 at 4K. The Low preset shows the highest raw numbers, starting at 195 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 181 FPS at 1440p, and settling at 151 FPS at 4K. Interestingly, the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is more severe for the High preset (a 40.9% decrease) and the Ultra preset (a 40.8% decrease) than it is for the Low preset (a 22.6% decrease). This suggests that the higher-fidelity presets introduce more GPU-intensive effects like shadows, lighting, and reflections, which magnify the resolution penalty.

The 4K Low result of 151 FPS is particularly telling. The fact that the system can still push over 150 FPS at 4K on Low settings indicates that the RTX 5090 D has substantial headroom. The bottleneck at 4K is almost certainly the GPU, as the sheer number of pixels required at 3840x2160 places an immense load on the rendering hardware. The data supports this: the gap between the Low and Ultra presets at 4K is 67 FPS, while at 1080p the gap narrows to 53 FPS. The widening gap at higher resolutions is a classic sign of GPU limitation, as the GPU's workload becomes the dominant factor in determining frame rate. The 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth are more than sufficient for any texture and geometry data the game can throw at it, so the limiting factor is pure rasterization and shader throughput.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D is the undisputed powerhouse in this pairing, and its specifications explain the high frame rates observed. With 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, the card has an enormous memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain, photogrammetry, and aircraft detail, this bandwidth is crucial for preventing hitches and ensuring smooth texture loading. The 92.2 billion transistors on the GB202 chip and the 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute provide the raw processing power needed to handle the complex geometry and lighting calculations.

The GPU's benchmark results corroborate its strong standing. It holds a percentile rank of 92 among all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 77712 places it in the upper echelon of graphics cards. In the provided nearestRivals data, it is compared to mobile GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT, which has a score of 78940 and a deltaPct of -1.6, meaning the RTX 5090 D is about 1.6% slower in this aggregated metric. This is an interesting comparison, as it suggests that while the desktop RTX 5090 D is a top-tier part, its raw compute score is not dramatically ahead of some high-end laptop parts, though its 575 W TDP and 1.79 TB/s memory bandwidth are in a different class entirely.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's strength is most apparent at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the combination achieves 84 FPS, a highly playable number for a simulator. The 4K Medium result of 118 FPS with a minimum of 100 FPS shows that even with a demanding resolution, the GPU can maintain a stable frame time. The card's 2407 MHz boost clock and 2017 MHz base clock are relatively high, and the 176 ROPs and 680 TMUs ensure that pixel and texture processing are not bottlenecks. The data suggests that for this game, the RTX 5090 D is more than capable of delivering a premium experience; the CPU is the more likely constraint, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU has excess capacity.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra?

A: The measured average FPS drops from 142 at 1920x1080 to 84 at 3840x2160, a decrease of 58 FPS or approximately 40.8%. This indicates that the GPU is the primary scaling factor at higher resolutions.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, scores 24964, a deltaPct of 0.2% in favor of the 8400F. The Intel Core i7-13620H is also close with a score of 24911, a 0.4% difference.

Q: Is the RTX 5090 D a good match for this CPU in this game?

A: The data shows the GPU is the dominant component. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 195 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 84 FPS. The large frame rate swing across resolutions suggests the GPU is being stressed appropriately, while the CPU's role becomes more important at lower resolutions where it can feed frames faster.

Q: What is the best setting for a smooth 4K experience?

A: Based on the measured data, the Medium preset at 3840x2160 provides an average of 118 FPS with a minimum of 100 FPS. This offers a solid balance, as the High preset drops to 88 FPS and Ultra to 84 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU's single-thread performance matter for this game?

A: The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2943, and its 3DMark single-thread score is 951. These are respectable numbers, and the fact that the 1080p Low preset reaches 195 FPS suggests that the CPU can handle high frame rates, but it does not show clear evidence of bottlenecking.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 181 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 114 FPS. This 67 FPS difference represents a 58.8% increase in performance when switching from Ultra to Low, showing the significant impact of graphical settings on frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080

At this resolution, the CPU and GPU have the most balanced workload. The Low preset yields an average of 195 FPS, providing the highest refresh rate possible. The Medium preset sees a slight drop to 178 FPS, with a minimum of 151 FPS and a maximum of 205 FPS. The High preset averages 149 FPS, and the Ultra preset brings the average down to 142 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 53 FPS, which is the smallest relative gap of the three tested resolutions. This indicates that at 1080p, the system is not entirely GPU-bound, as the CPU can still feed frames quickly.

2560x1440

Moving to 1440p, the GPU begins to assert its dominance. The Low preset averages 181 FPS, which is still very high. The Medium preset drops to 159 FPS, with a minimum of 136 FPS and a maximum of 183 FPS. High and Ultra presets follow with 120 FPS and 114 FPS, respectively. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 67 FPS. Interestingly, the gap between High and Ultra is only 6 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not as demanding as the jump from Medium to High, which costs 39 FPS.

3840x2160

At 4K, the GPU's workload is at its maximum. The Low preset produces an average of 151 FPS, which is impressive for 4K and suggests the game can scale down well. The Medium preset provides an average of 118 FPS with a minimum of 100 FPS, making it the only 4K preset with a recorded minimum frame rate. The High preset averages 88 FPS, and Ultra averages 84 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is significant, a 67 FPS drop, but the playability remains high even at the Ultra preset, which stays above the 60 FPS threshold.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture on the AM5 socket. With a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, it provides solid single-thread performance, which is critical for a simulation title that often relies on a primary simulation thread. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943 is competitive, and its 3DMark single-thread score of 951 shows that its single-core throughput is adequate for high-FPS gaming scenarios. The 16 MB of shared L3 cache is a moderate amount, but the 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth from the dual-channel DDR5 support helps keep the cores fed.

The CPU's synthetic benchmark scores show it is a capable mid-range part. Its average benchmark score of 25005 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits comfortably among its nearest rivals. The data shows it is nearly identical in performance to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, with a deltaPct of just 0.2%. It also edges out the Intel Core i7-11850H and i7-13620H by margins of 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively. This indicates that in a synthetic context, the 8400F is a strong performer for its class.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is evident in the 1080p results. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 195 FPS, which is higher than the 4K Low result of 151 FPS. This 44 FPS difference is not solely due to resolution; it also reflects the CPU's ability to prepare frames faster at lower resolutions. However, the CPU is not a severe bottleneck, as the 1080p Ultra result of 142 FPS is still very high. The 6 cores and 12 threads are likely sufficient to handle the game's engine, though the lack of V-Cache, as seen in some other AMD parts, might limit performance in specific scenarios. The 65W TDP and 4 nm process make it an efficient chip, but the data suggests it is the secondary component in this pairing, with the GPU driving the most significant performance swings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the user's target resolution and desired frame rate. For users with a 4K display, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance. It delivers an average of 118 FPS with a minimum of 100 FPS, which is a smooth and stable experience. The High and Ultra presets, while visually superior, drop to 88 and 84 FPS respectively, which are still playable but sacrifice the headroom that ensures consistency in demanding scenes. The Low preset at 4K, while yielding 151 FPS, likely compromises too much visual quality for a simulator where scenery detail is paramount.

At 1440p, the High preset is the recommended choice. It provides an average of 120 FPS, which is excellent for a high-refresh-rate monitor, while the Ultra preset drops to 114 FPS, a negligible difference for a significant potential increase in visual quality. The Medium preset at 159 FPS is also viable for competitive play, but the High preset offers a better balance. The Low preset at 181 FPS is unnecessary unless chasing maximum frame rates.

For 1080p users, the Ultra preset is the clear winner. The average of 142 FPS is well above the 60 FPS threshold and even exceeds 120 FPS, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate displays. The drop from Ultra to High is only 7 FPS, but the Ultra preset provides the best image quality available. The Medium preset at 178 FPS might appeal to e-sports oriented players, but for a flight simulator, the visual immersion offered by the Ultra preset is more valuable. The data shows that the system is capable of maintaining high frame rates at 1080p even on the highest settings, so there is little reason to compromise on quality.