Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER occupies the 2138th position out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the lower-middle segment of the database, meaning it outperforms roughly 42% of all recorded combinations while trailing the majority. The ranking reflects a pairing where the GPU's age and mid-range positioning in the current hierarchy are the primary constraints, despite the CPU being a recent, high-percentile processor.

The CPU itself ranks in the 81st percentile against all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 29713. Its nearest rivals in general compute include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% ahead), AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% behind), AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% behind), and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.8% behind). These are all close matches, indicating the 9600X delivers compute performance on par with several 7-series parts despite having fewer cores. However, in this flight simulator's specific workload, the combo's ranking is dragged down by the GPU, which sits in the 65th percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 20282. The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (1.2% ahead), Intel Arc B570 (1.3% ahead), and Intel Arc A750 (1.5% ahead) — all within a narrow band, confirming the RTX 2070 SUPER is competitive with those parts but not a class leader.

For context on the CPU's theoretical headroom, its multi-threaded scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 17528.5 and a single-core result of 2183.5. The Geekbench scores are 14438 multi-core and 2923 single-core. These numbers suggest the processor is not the bottleneck in most scenarios, but the measured FPS data will clarify where the actual limits lie.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU104 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with 40 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores. The memory subsystem consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective. The base clock is 1605 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 8 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for the tested settings, as the game's streaming-based world rendering does not appear to exceed this limit at the resolutions measured. The GPU's pixel rate is 113.3 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 283.2 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 9.062 TFLOPS. These specifications place it in a range where it can handle 1080p and 1440p with reasonable smoothness, but 4K Ultra pushes it to its limits.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) is relevant because Microsoft Flight Simulator uses DX12 for its rendering pipeline. The Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 support provide alternative paths, but the measured data reflects the DX12 performance. The power draw is rated at 215 W TDP, requiring a suggested 550 W PSU, with a dual-slot cooler and connections of 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 111 FPS, which drops to 89 FPS at 1440p Low (a 19.8% reduction) and further to 66 FPS at 4K Low (a 40.5% reduction from 1080p). This scaling indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU's rendering load grows substantially with pixel count, but the CPU is still able to feed frames adequately at the lower resolutions.

Moving to Medium settings, the 1080p result is 86 FPS, dropping to 70 FPS at 1440p (18.6% reduction) and 51 FPS at 4K (40.7% reduction from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium suggests a predictable GPU-bound scaling pattern. At High settings, the 1080p score is 65 FPS, 1440p is 52 FPS (20% reduction), and 4K is 39 FPS (40% reduction). The Ultra settings show 62 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p (19.4% reduction), and 37 FPS at 4K (40.3% reduction).

The near-constant ~20% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~40% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect smaller FPS differences between resolutions at lower settings, but the proportional declines persist even at Low settings. This means the RTX 2070 SUPER is fully saturated at each resolution, and the Ryzen 5 9600X has sufficient headroom to keep up.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest settings produce the highest average FPS at 111. The Medium preset averages 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 and maximum of 99. High settings yield 65 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 62 FPS. The delta between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 3 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset at this resolution. The gap between Low and Medium is 25 FPS, which is substantial, but the gap between Medium and High is 21 FPS, indicating a steep visual quality cost.

Moving to 2560x1440, Low settings average 89 FPS. Medium drops to 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80. High averages 52 FPS, and Ultra averages 50 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 2 FPS, which is within the margin of error. This suggests that the Ultra preset at 1440p offers negligible improvement over High but carries the same performance cost. The Medium setting at 1440p provides a playable 70 FPS average, which is 34% faster than High.

At 3840x2160, the results become more constrained. Low settings average 66 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that crosses the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 59. High averages 39 FPS, and Ultra averages 37 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 4K is again just 2 FPS, reinforcing the pattern that Ultra is not worth its cost. The 4K Medium result of 51 FPS is 30% higher than 4K High, making it the best balance at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, the data suggests that High settings at 65 FPS are the sweet spot for visual fidelity with smooth gameplay. Ultra at 62 FPS offers only a 4.6% improvement in frame rate over High, but the visual difference in a flight simulator with dense scenery may not justify the marginal performance loss. If the user prioritizes frame rate, Medium at 86 FPS is a significant jump, but the drop from High to Medium is noticeable in texture detail and shadow quality. Low at 111 FPS is only recommended for competitive or recording scenarios where maximum smoothness is required.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts to Medium settings. The 70 FPS average at Medium provides a good balance, with a minimum of 59 FPS ensuring occasional dips stay above 55 FPS. High at 52 FPS is playable but may feel less smooth during complex scenes, while Ultra at 50 FPS is barely distinguishable from High in performance. Low at 89 FPS is viable for users who want high frame rates, but the visual compromise is significant at this resolution.

For 4K, the only playable option per the data is Low settings, which achieves 66 FPS. Medium at 51 FPS is borderline, with a minimum of 44 FPS that could cause stutter during dense urban flyovers. High at 39 FPS and Ultra at 37 FPS are below the threshold for smooth simulation, as flight simulators require consistent frame pacing for accurate control input. The recommendation is to run 4K at Low for smoothness, or drop to 1440p Medium for a better visual experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the measured data, 1440p Medium provides the best balance with a 70 FPS average and a minimum of 59 FPS. At 1080p, High at 65 FPS is also viable, but 1440p offers a higher resolution without a significant frame rate penalty.

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

A: The 4K Ultra preset averages 37 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold and may result in noticeable stuttering. The minimum FPS is not recorded for Ultra, but the average is 40% lower than the 4K Low result of 66 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The resolution scaling shows consistent ~20% FPS drops from 1080p to 1440p and ~40% drops from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's high single-core score of 2183.5 in Cinebench R23 supports this conclusion.

Q: How does the RTX 2070 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 20282, placing it 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, 1.2% behind the RTX 3070 Mobile, 1.3% behind the Intel Arc B570, and 1.5% behind the Intel Arc A750. These are all close margins, indicating the 2070 SUPER is within a competitive band.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, High averages 65 FPS and Ultra averages 62 FPS (a 3 FPS difference). At 1440p, High averages 52 FPS and Ultra averages 50 FPS (a 2 FPS difference). At 4K, High averages 39 FPS and Ultra averages 37 FPS (a 2 FPS difference). The performance cost of Ultra is minimal, but so is the benefit.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM cause any issues at 4K?

A: The measured data does not show any VRAM-related stutters or crashes at 4K. The 4K Medium preset records a minimum FPS of 44, which is lower than the average of 51, but this is expected for GPU load rather than memory overflow.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 9000 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename. It uses a 4 nm process at TSMC with 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The base clock is 3.90 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, and the TDP is rated at 65 W. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration, providing 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC is supported. The CPU uses the AMD Socket AM5 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily to handle the simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic. The single-thread performance is critical for this genre, and the 9600X delivers a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2183.5, which is strong. The multi-core score of 17528.5 indicates that even with 6 cores, the processor can handle the game's multi-threading to some degree, but the sim's engine tends to favor single-thread speed.

The CPU's 3DMark scores show a scaling pattern from 2456 (2 threads) to 7590 (max threads), indicating good multi-threading efficiency. The PassMark single-thread score of 4570 and multi-thread score of 30027 further confirm the balance. The CPU's average benchmark score of 29713 places it in the 81st percentile, with nearest rivals all within 1% of its score.

Given that the FPS scaling is consistent across resolutions, the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game. The 9600X has enough headroom to push the RTX 2070 SUPER to its maximum at each resolution. However, at 1080p Low, the 111 FPS result suggests the CPU can produce high frame rates when the GPU load is light, but the sim's engine may still cap performance in complex scenes. The boost clock of 5.40 GHz is particularly beneficial for flight simulators, as they often have single-threaded bottlenecks during heavy scenery loading.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s with DDR5 support is adequate for feeding the GPU, and the 32 MB L3 cache helps with the streaming data that Microsoft Flight Simulator uses for terrain and weather. Overall, the data shows this CPU is a strong match for the GPU, but the GPU's age limits the overall combo ranking in the database.