Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and AMD Radeon RX 9060 pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a fascinating case of a balanced, mid-generation duo. The data shows a system that is capable of smooth performance at mainstream resolutions but begins to show its limitations as the graphical load scales to extreme levels. This analysis examines the measured FPS across resolutions and settings to determine the nature of this combination and how it navigates the demanding skies of this simulation.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance percentile of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X compared to all other CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 7 3700X sits in the 84th percentile among all CPUs, indicating it performs better than the vast majority of processors in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score is 34260.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 9060 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014. It is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which scores 16129, a delta of -0.7%. It is also closely matched with the AMD Radeon RX 7700, which scores 15852, a delta of 1%.

Q: What is the best measured average FPS achieved by this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 111, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only setting and resolution combination that breaks the 100 FPS mark.

Q: At what resolution and settings does the combo achieve a 60 FPS average or higher?

A: The system achieves an average of 60 FPS or higher in several configurations. This includes 3840x2160 Low (66 FPS), 2560x1440 High (52 FPS), and Low (89 FPS), and 1920x1080 High (65 FPS), Low (111 FPS), and Medium (86 FPS). The 2560x1440 High setting is the highest fidelity preset that averages over 50 FPS.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combos in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combinations. This places it in the upper-middle portion of the performance spectrum, meaning roughly 57% of tested systems perform better in this specific game.

Q: Is the measured data for this combo considered reliable?

A: Yes, the `dataIsMeasured` field is set to true, confirming that the FPS figures presented are from direct testing rather than estimates or projections.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for heavy single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, this CPU provides a solid foundation. The 8 cores and 16 threads are sufficient to handle the complex flight dynamics, AI traffic, and physics calculations that the simulation runs in the background. The data suggests this processor is not the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p.

The CPU's performance in general benchmarks is noteworthy. Its average benchmark score of 34260 places it in the 84th percentile. Looking at its nearest rivals, it is almost perfectly matched with the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, which scores 34222 (a 0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i5-13450HX, which scores 34333 (a -0.2% delta). This indicates that while the Ryzen 7 3700X is a few generations old, its processing power is still highly competitive with modern mid-range options. Its 32 MB of L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth are adequate for feeding the GPU data in a demanding simulation like this.

The correlation between CPU capability and game performance becomes clear when examining the FPS scaling. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 111 FPS, suggesting the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU enough data to produce high frame rates. However, as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the limiting factor. The fact that the combo ranks 1712 out of 2996 in this specific game indicates that while the CPU is strong, the overall system performance is dictated by the combined capabilities of both components, and in this title, the GPU's limitations become more apparent at higher graphical loads.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the graphical powerhouse in this pairing, and its characteristics dictate the system's performance at higher resolutions. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, it offers a total bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The GPU has a boost clock of 2990 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz, which are quite high. The RX 9060's average benchmark score is 16014, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs.

Its performance is closely matched with several rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852). This places the RX 9060 in a competitive mid-range segment. However, the 8 GB VRAM capacity is a potential point of concern for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can be very demanding on memory at high resolutions and texture settings. The data shows a significant drop in FPS from Low to Ultra settings at each resolution, which is typical, but the magnitude of the drop suggests the GPU is working hard.

The GPU's role as the primary performance limiter at higher resolutions is clear from the data. For example, at 4K, the average FPS drops from 66 at Low settings to just 37 at Ultra settings. This 44% performance penalty from a settings change is a clear indication that the GPU is the component under the most stress. The RX 9060 is not a top-tier card, but it provides playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with adjusted settings. The high clock speeds help maintain performance, but the memory bandwidth and capacity are structural limits that cannot be overcome by clock speed alone in a VRAM-intensive scenario.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 7 3700X and the Radeon RX 9060 achieves a rank of 1712 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 57th percentile, meaning a majority of other systems tested will outperform it. This ranking is a direct reflection of the balance between the two components. The CPU is a strong performer, but the GPU, while competent, holds the system back from reaching higher performance tiers, especially in a game that can be graphically demanding.

This mid-pack ranking is consistent with the performance of the individual components. The CPU's 84th percentile ranking is higher than the combo's overall ranking, while the GPU's 59th percentile is lower. This suggests the GPU is the performance anchor. The system is not a low-end setup, but it is also not a high-end one. It sits in a comfortable middle ground where it can handle the game, but enthusiasts seeking maximum fidelity or very high refresh rates would need to look at more powerful components.

The ranking also implies that the system is well-balanced for its class. It is not a case of a massively overpowered CPU being bottlenecked by a weak GPU, nor is it a weak CPU holding back a strong GPU. Instead, the two components are reasonably well-matched, with the GPU being the more significant limiting factor in this specific title. This balance means that users can expect predictable performance scaling as they adjust settings, with the GPU being the primary arbiter of frame rate at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions. When moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by roughly 20% at each settings level. For example, at High settings, the FPS goes from 65 to 52, a 20% decrease. This is a typical scaling factor and suggests a balanced load on the system, where both CPU and GPU are being utilized more heavily.

The scaling from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is where the system's limitations become more pronounced. At 4K, the average FPS drops another 25% compared to 1440p. For instance, at Medium settings, the FPS falls from 69 to 51, a 26% decrease. This larger drop indicates that the GPU is becoming the overwhelming bottleneck. The pixel count jumps significantly at 4K, and the RX 9060's 8 GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus are taxed heavily. The data shows that 4K is not a realistic target for this combo if a consistent 60 FPS is desired, as even the Low preset only averages 66 FPS.

The performance delta between resolutions reveals the limiting component. The consistent and expected scaling from 1080p to 1440p suggests a balanced system. However, the steep drop-off at 4K is a clear sign that the GPU is hitting a performance ceiling. The CPU, while still working, is unable to compensate for the GPU's inability to handle the increased graphical load. This is a classic sign of a system where the graphics card is the primary constraint at higher resolutions, while at 1080p, the system is more balanced, allowing for high frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides average FPS figures for four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at three resolutions. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers strong performance. The Low preset yields an average of 111 FPS, Medium 86 FPS, High 65 FPS, and Ultra 62 FPS. Only the Medium preset includes min/max data, showing a range of 73 to 99 FPS. This resolution is clearly the sweet spot for this hardware, offering playable to highly responsive frame rates across all settings.

At 2560x1440, performance begins to dip. The Low preset averages 89 FPS, Medium 69 FPS, High 52 FPS, and Ultra 50 FPS. The Medium preset shows a min/max of 59 to 80 FPS. This resolution is still very playable, but users will need to be more selective with their settings to maintain a smooth experience. High and Ultra presets fall below 60 FPS, which may be a concern for some users who prefer a higher refresh rate.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates. The Low preset averages 66 FPS, which is the only 4K setting to break 60 FPS. The Medium preset averages 51 FPS (with a min/max of 44 to 59), High drops to 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 37 FPS. The data clearly shows that 4K gaming with this combo requires significant compromises in visual fidelity to achieve a playable frame rate. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is a 29 FPS difference, highlighting the GPU's performance range.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience depends heavily on the user's target resolution and tolerance for frame rate drops. For users with a 1920x1080 display, the High preset is an excellent choice, delivering an average of 65 FPS. This provides a great balance between visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset is also viable, averaging 62 FPS, for those who prioritize maximum visual detail. The Medium preset is a safe choice for ensuring higher frame rates, with an average of 86 FPS.

For users at 2560x1440, the Medium preset offers the best balance, with an average of 69 FPS and a minimum of 59 FPS. This ensures a mostly smooth experience with good visual quality. The High preset, at 52 FPS, is playable but may feel less fluid. For a more stable experience, the Low preset, which averages 89 FPS, is an option, but it compromises visual fidelity. The data suggests that 1440p High is the highest visual quality setting that remains within a reasonable performance envelope.

At 3840x2160, the recommendations are heavily constrained. The Low preset, averaging 66 FPS, is the only setting that provides a consistently smooth experience. The Medium preset, at 51 FPS, is playable for those who can tolerate occasional frame rate drops below 60 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended for serious play, as their averages of 39 and 37 FPS respectively will result in a noticeably choppy experience. For 4K, the data strongly suggests that this combo is best suited for Low or Medium settings.