Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and AMD Radeon RX 9070 reveal a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 157.3 FPS, which drops to 125.1 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 88.9 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 43.5% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, a scaling curve that indicates the graphics card is becoming the primary limiter at higher pixel counts.

The scaling behavior shifts when moving to higher quality presets. At Ultra settings, the frame rate falls from 83.5 FPS at 1080p to 71.3 FPS at 1440p and finally 52.8 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is 36.8%, which is actually less severe than the drop at Low settings. This counterintuitive result suggests that at Ultra settings, the CPU is contributing more to the overall performance envelope, partially masking the GPU's resolution scaling penalty. The flight simulator's complex physics and scenery generation systems place substantial demands on the processor, and those demands become relatively more significant as the GPU struggles with higher resolution workloads.

Medium settings show a similar progression: 121.3 FPS at 1080p, 98.8 FPS at 1440p, and 68.2 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 4K reduction here is 43.8%, nearly identical to the Low setting's drop. High settings produce 93.1 FPS at 1080p, 74.5 FPS at 1440p, and 53.8 FPS at 4K, a 42.2% decrease. The consistency across Low, Medium, and High settings indicates that the GPU's rendering load scales predictably with resolution, while the Ultra preset introduces additional CPU-bound simulation work that changes the bottleneck balance.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 157.3 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This represents the ceiling for this particular pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with all other resolution and settings combinations producing lower results.

Q: How does the Ultra preset at 4K compare to the High preset at 1080p?

A: Ultra at 3840x2160 yields 52.8 FPS, while High at 1920x1080 achieves 93.1 FPS. The difference of 40.3 FPS illustrates the combined impact of both resolution and quality settings on performance.

Q: Is the RX 9070's 16 GB of VRAM sufficient for this game's 4K Ultra demands?

A: The benchmark data shows playable performance at 4K Ultra with 52.8 FPS average, and the 16 GB GDDR6 memory with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth provides ample capacity for the simulator's texture streaming workloads. No VRAM-related stutter or performance collapse is evident in the measured results.

Q: Which settings preset provides the smallest performance gap between 1440p and 4K?

A: The High preset shows the smallest relative difference, with 74.5 FPS at 2560x1440 versus 53.8 FPS at 3840x2160, a 27.8% reduction. Ultra and Medium both show larger drops of 25.9% and 31.0% respectively, while Low shows a 28.9% decrease.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance relate to the frame rates at 1080p?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X scores 3603 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 1253 in 3DMark single-thread tests. These strong single-thread results support the high 1080p frame rates seen across all settings, particularly the 157.3 FPS Low result, which suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor at lower resolutions.

Q: What performance can users expect when moving from 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra?

A: The measured data shows 83.5 FPS at 1080p Ultra dropping to 71.3 FPS at 1440p Ultra, a 14.6% reduction. This relatively modest penalty makes 1440p Ultra a viable option for users seeking higher visual fidelity without sacrificing too much smoothness.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 plays a dominant role in determining the frame rates at higher resolutions. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator's extensive texture streaming of terrain and aircraft details. The GPU's boost clock of 2520 MHz and game clock of 2070 MHz provide the computational throughput needed to process the simulator's complex rendering pipeline, which includes photogrammetry data and dynamic weather effects.

The RX 9070's RDNA 4.0 architecture with 3584 shading units and 128 ROPs handles the rasterization workload efficiently. The measured 53.8 FPS at 4K High and 52.8 FPS at 4K Ultra demonstrate that the GPU is operating near its practical limits at this resolution, with only a 1 FPS difference between High and Ultra settings. This small gap suggests that the Ultra preset's additional effects are being processed with minimal additional GPU cost, or that another component is beginning to constrain performance.

At 1080p, the GPU has more headroom, as evidenced by the 157.3 FPS Low result. However, the fact that 1080p Ultra produces 83.5 FPS while 4K Low produces 88.9 FPS is revealing. The 4K Low result being higher than 1080p Ultra indicates that the quality settings have a more substantial impact on the GPU's workload than raw resolution alone. This is typical for flight simulators, where shadows, reflections, and terrain detail levels can be computationally expensive regardless of pixel count.

The GPU's FP32 performance of 36.13 TFLOPS and texture rate of 564.5 GTexel/s provide the raw compute and texture filtering capabilities necessary for the simulator's dense scenery. The 56 ray tracing cores are present but may see limited use depending on whether the game's rendering path utilizes ray-traced effects. The benchmark results suggest that traditional rasterization performance is the primary driver of the measured frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 offers the most balanced experience. At 98.8 FPS, it provides smooth performance that comfortably exceeds the 60 FPS threshold for immersive flight simulation, while the Medium quality settings retain enough visual detail for effective navigation and scenery appreciation. The jump from Medium to High at 1440p costs 24.3 FPS (98.8 down to 74.5), which is a meaningful loss for relatively modest visual improvements in a simulator context.

For users prioritizing maximum visual fidelity, the High preset at 1920x1080 delivers 93.1 FPS, which is actually higher than the Medium preset at 1440p. This suggests that users with 1080p displays can comfortably run High settings without sacrificing frame rate. The Ultra preset at 1080p produces 83.5 FPS, still smooth, but the 9.6 FPS difference between High and Ultra may not justify the additional visual settings for all users.

At 4K resolution, the Medium preset at 68.2 FPS represents the most playable option, as High and Ultra both dip below 54 FPS. The Low preset at 4K achieves 88.9 FPS but sacrifices too much visual quality for a simulator that relies heavily on visual immersion. The data suggests that 4K users should select Medium for the best compromise between visual quality and smoothness, while 1440p users have the flexibility to choose between Medium at 98.8 FPS or High at 74.5 FPS depending on their preference for visual detail versus frame rate headroom.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific configuration of AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 556th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 69th percentile, meaning it outperforms roughly 69% of all tested combinations while being outperformed by the remaining 31%. Given that the CPU and GPU are both modern mid-range to upper-mid-range components, this ranking reflects the simulator's demanding nature and the importance of both processor and graphics card performance in achieving high frame rates.

The CPU's nearest rivals provide context for its contribution to this ranking. The Intel Core i5-13490F scores 28173 in average benchmarks, a 0.3% delta from the Ryzen 5 9600X's 28246. The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS scores 28369, which is 0.4% higher, while the Intel Core i5-14500T scores 28377, 0.5% higher. These marginal differences indicate that the CPU is not the primary factor differentiating this combo's ranking from others in the same range.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a similar pattern. The NVIDIA A2 scores 34866, just 0.2% higher than the RX 9070's 34780, while the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scores 34677, 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon HD 7970 scores 34541, 0.7% lower, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 34511, 0.8% lower. These close benchmark scores suggest that the RX 9070's performance in this game is consistent with its general-purpose GPU benchmark standing, and the combo's rank is primarily determined by the pairing's combined capabilities rather than any unusual synergy or bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 157.3 FPS, Medium produces 121.3 FPS, High produces 93.1 FPS, and Ultra produces 83.5 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a total reduction of 73.8 FPS, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High at 28.2 FPS. The smallest drop is between High and Ultra at 9.6 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns as quality settings approach maximum.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 125.1 FPS, Medium at 98.8 FPS, High at 74.5 FPS, and Ultra at 71.3 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows significantly at this resolution, with only 3.2 FPS separating them. This convergence indicates that at 1440p, the Ultra preset's additional settings are not heavily taxing the GPU, possibly due to CPU limitations or the specific nature of the rendering workload.

At 3840x2160, the measured values are: Low at 88.9 FPS, Medium at 68.2 FPS, High at 53.8 FPS, and Ultra at 52.8 FPS. The High and Ultra results are nearly identical, with just 1.0 FPS separating them. The Medium preset remains 14.4 FPS above High, while Low is 20.7 FPS above Medium. The 4K results show the most compression across settings, with only 36.1 FPS separating Low from Ultra, compared to 73.8 FPS at 1080p and 53.8 FPS at 1440p. This compression at 4K is a clear indication that the GPU's rendering capacity becomes the dominant constraint at this resolution, limiting the performance differentiation between quality presets.