Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER reveals a predictable but steep performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination delivers 211.9 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low, that figure drops to 169.6 FPS, a 42.3 FPS reduction. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 119.8 FPS. This scaling pattern shows that even at the lowest settings, the GPU is still the primary driver of frame rate, as the resolution increase directly cuts into the pixel throughput.

The gap between resolutions narrows at higher settings, which is telling. At Ultra settings, the 1080p result is 117.2 FPS, 1440p is 95.3 FPS, and 4K is 68.7 FPS. The delta from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is 48.5 FPS, while at Low settings that same resolution gap is 92.1 FPS. This compression indicates that as the visual load increases, the bottleneck shifts more heavily onto the GPU's compute and memory resources, reducing the relative impact of resolution scaling. The game becomes less resolution-sensitive when the scene complexity is maxed out.

The data suggests a strong pairing. At 1080p Low, the 211.9 FPS result is well beyond the refresh rate of most displays, meaning the CPU is not holding back the GPU in this scenario. The Ryzen 5 9600X, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, shows it can feed the RTX 4080 SUPER adequately. However, the 4K Ultra result of 68.7 FPS points to a GPU-bound situation, as the RTX 4080 SUPER's 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed heavily by the simulator's dense terrain rendering.

GPU Role

The RTX 4080 SUPER is the clear workhorse in this configuration, and its specifications align with the observed frame rates. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with 10240 shading units. The 16 GB GDDR6X memory pool is substantial for a flight simulator, which often loads large texture sets for photorealistic scenery. The memory bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s ensures that texture streaming from system memory to the GPU does not become a stuttering bottleneck.

Benchmark results for the GPU show a PassMark G3D score of 34245 and a PassMark GPU Compute score of 19822. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 6600. These numbers position the RTX 4080 SUPER in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, making it a top-tier part for this title. The nearest rival comparison shows it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, 2.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7700S, and 2.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti in average benchmark score.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's VRAM capacity becomes critical at 4K Ultra. The 68.7 FPS average at that setting suggests the sim is using a significant portion of the 16 GB frame buffer. The 112 ROPs and 320 TMUs help with the fill rate needed for the game's complex geometry and textures. The GPU's fp32 performance of 52.22 TFLOPS provides ample compute for the game's fluid dynamics and weather simulation models. The data shows that the RTX 4080 SUPER is not a limiting factor until the resolution and settings are pushed to their extremes.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved by this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 211.9, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER compare to its closest rival in benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 53610, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (53489) and 2.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (52086).

Q: What is the performance drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 117.2 at 1920x1080 to 68.7 at 3840x2160, a reduction of 48.5 FPS.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 9600X bottleneck the RTX 4080 SUPER at any resolution?

A: At 1080p Low, the 211.9 FPS result indicates the CPU is not the limiting factor. The data suggests the system is GPU-bound at higher resolutions and settings, as the 4K Ultra result of 68.7 FPS aligns with the GPU's expected performance ceiling.

Q: How much faster is the 1080p Low result compared to the 4K Low result?

A: The 1080p Low result is 211.9 FPS, while the 4K Low result is 119.8 FPS, making the 1080p result 92.1 FPS higher.

Q: What is the RTX 4080 SUPER's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER is in the 88th percentile of all GPUs based on its average benchmark score of 53610.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 211.9 FPS, Medium settings produce 163.7 FPS, High settings deliver 123 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 117.2 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is substantial at 40.7 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 5.8 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 169.6 FPS, Medium at 127.8 FPS, High at 98.3 FPS, and Ultra at 95.3 FPS. The step from Medium to High represents a 29.5 FPS decrease, while the step from High to Ultra is just 3 FPS. This pattern repeats at 3840x2160, where Low averages 119.8 FPS, Medium averages 93.8 FPS, High averages 71.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 68.7 FPS. The High to Ultra delta at 4K is only 2.4 FPS.

The data shows diminishing returns from High to Ultra at every resolution. At 1080p, the Ultra preset is 5.8 FPS slower than High. At 1440p, the difference is 3 FPS. At 4K, the difference narrows to 2.4 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity with minimal performance cost, but the High preset may be the sweet spot for consistent frame pacing. The Low to Medium jump is larger, with a 48.2 FPS difference at 1080p, 41.8 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the High preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for most users. At 1920x1080, High delivers 123 FPS, which is smooth for any display. At 2560x1440, High produces 98.3 FPS, comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for immersive flight simulation. Even at 3840x2160, High maintains 71.1 FPS, which is playable for a simulation title where precise control inputs matter more than twitch reflexes.

The Ultra preset is not worth the performance trade-off for most scenarios. The data shows that Ultra is only 5.8 FPS slower than High at 1080p, 3 FPS slower at 1440p, and 2.4 FPS slower at 4K. Since the visual difference between High and Ultra in a flight simulator is often subtle — involving shadow quality and draw distance — the cost-benefit analysis favors High. However, for users with a high-refresh-rate monitor at 1080p, the 117.2 FPS Ultra result is still excellent.

For users prioritizing frame rate over fidelity, the Medium preset is a strong choice. At 1440p, Medium delivers 127.8 FPS, which is ideal for competitive or fast-paced flying. At 4K, Medium's 93.8 FPS is a significant improvement over High's 71.1 FPS, making it the recommended preset for 4K displays if smoothness is the priority. The Low preset, while hitting 211.9 FPS at 1080p, sacrifices too much visual detail for a game that relies heavily on scenery and terrain rendering. The Ryzen 5 9600X's single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3603, ensures that the CPU can handle the game's simulation logic at any of these settings.