Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X with the AMD Radeon RX 580 in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This pairing ranks 3376 out of 3714 tested combos in the game, placing it in the lower portion of the database for this title. The rank reflects the overall performance ceiling of the combination across all tested resolutions and settings.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700X compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700X posts an average benchmark score of 37943, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14901E (37911) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904). It also leads the Intel Core 5 211E by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 by 0.4% in average score.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at any resolution and settings combo?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 54 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that crosses the 50 FPS threshold, indicating the combo's practical ceiling for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this pair in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The lowest average is 18 FPS, observed at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This represents the most demanding scenario in the measured data, where the frame rate drops below playable levels for most users.

Q: How does the RX 580's benchmark score compare to its closest competitor?

A: The RX 580 has an average benchmark score of 12928, which is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12986). It outperforms the AMD Radeon 740M by 0.5% and the AMD FirePro W5100 by 0.6%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the CPU and GPU individually?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700X sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong overall processing power. The RX 580, by contrast, is at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, showing it is a mid-range part that will likely bottleneck the CPU in gaming workloads.

# CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and it carries a 65 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it includes 32 MB of shared L3 cache along with 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 80 KB of L1 per core.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial because the simulation engine handles complex flight dynamics, weather systems, and terrain calculations that scale with thread count and single-thread performance. The Ryzen 7 9700X's 16 threads provide ample parallel processing capacity for these workloads, and its high boost clock of 5.50 GHz ensures strong single-thread responsiveness, which is critical for the game's main simulation loop. The processor's 3DMark scores reflect this balance: 1280 in single-thread, 9824 in 16-thread, and 9771 in max-thread tests. Cinebench R23 results show 2211 in single-core and 20485 in multicore, while Geekbench reports 3023 single-core and 17906 multicore.

The CPU's 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms it is a high-end part by processing standards. However, the measured FPS in this game are far lower than what this processor alone could deliver, indicating the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 54 FPS, but even at this resolution and setting, the frame rate is modest given the CPU's capability. The delta between the CPU's synthetic scores — nearly identical to the Intel Core i9-14901E (0.1% ahead) — and the actual game performance highlights that the processor is not the bottleneck. The CPU's 3DMark 2-thread score of 2525 and 4-thread score of 4869 show it can handle lightly threaded tasks well, but the game's demands are met with headroom.

The Ryzen 7 9700X's architecture and cache layout — 32 MB shared L3, 1 MB per-core L2 — provide low-latency access to frequently used data, which is beneficial for a simulation that streams scenery and terrain data. The processor's PassMark multi-thread score of 37161 and single-thread score of 4654 further underscore its strength. Yet, in this specific game, the CPU's contribution is masked by the GPU's inability to keep up, especially at higher resolutions and settings where the frame rate drops sharply.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is built on the Polaris 20 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR5 memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The GPU's compute capabilities are rated at 6.175 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with pixel and texture rates of 42.88 GPixel/s and 193.0 GTexel/s, respectively. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The RX 580's 53rd percentile among all GPUs positions it as a mid-range part, and its average benchmark score of 12928 is nearly identical to the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940) and GTX 1660 SUPER (12986). In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render vast landscapes, detailed aircraft models, and complex lighting effects. The 8 GB VRAM is adequate for this title, but the Polaris architecture lacks modern features like hardware ray tracing, which the game can use for advanced lighting. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1005 is modest, and its PassMark G3D score of 8813 reflects its mid-range standing.

The RX 580's memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is a critical factor. At higher resolutions, the demand for texture data and geometry increases, and the GPU's bandwidth becomes a limiting resource. This is evident in the measured FPS: at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 54 FPS, but at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, it drops to 18 FPS. The 32 ROPs also constrain fill-rate-heavy scenarios, which is common in a game that renders dense scenery. The GPU's boost clock of 1340 MHz is modest by modern standards, and its 14 nm process node means higher power consumption (185 W TDP) relative to newer parts, but the data shows the performance ceiling is set by the GPU's raw throughput rather than its power characteristics.

The RX 580's nearest rival, the GTX 1660 SUPER, scores 0.4% higher on average, suggesting the two are effectively interchangeable in synthetic benchmarks. However, in this game, the RX 580's GCN architecture may struggle with the draw calls and tessellation loads that Microsoft Flight Simulator presents, leading to the low frame rates observed. The GPU's PassMark DirectX 12 score of 43 is particularly low, which hints at poor DX12 performance relative to its DX11 score of 60, and this could explain why the game — which can use DX12 — performs below expectations.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Ryzen 7 9700X and RX 580 ranks 3376 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 10% of all combos, which is a stark contrast to the CPU's 86th percentile standing. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, as the RX 580's 53rd percentile is the weaker link. The combination's position suggests that users with this pairing will experience significant frame rate limitations, particularly at higher resolutions and quality settings.

The gap between the CPU's potential and the combo's actual rank is instructive. The Ryzen 7 9700X has an average benchmark score of 37943, which is 0.1% above the Intel Core i9-14901E and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370. These rival CPUs, when paired with stronger GPUs, would likely rank far higher in this game. The RX 580's average score of 12928 is 0.4% below the GTX 1660 SUPER, and that GPU is itself an older mid-range part. The data indicates that the combo rank is a function of the GPU's age and capability, not the CPU's.

In practical terms, a rank of 3376 means that only 338 other combos perform worse in this game, out of 3714 tested. This is a bottom-tier result, and it aligns with the measured FPS, which never exceed 54 at any resolution or setting. The combo's performance is consistent with the GPU's position in the market: it is an end-of-life product (released in 2017) that was mid-range even at launch, and it has not aged well for a demanding simulation title. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for the game's logic, but the GPU's 32 ROPs and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot push enough pixels to achieve playable frame rates at higher settings.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent drop as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 54 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings reduces the average to 43 FPS, a 20.4% decrease. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average falls to 32 FPS, which is 40.7% below the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints.

The same trend appears at Medium settings: 42 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p (a 19.0% drop), and 25 FPS at 4K (a 40.5% drop from 1080p). At High settings, the averages are 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p (a 19.4% drop), and 19 FPS at 4K (a 38.7% drop). Ultra settings show the most severe scaling: 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p (a 20.0% drop), and 18 FPS at 4K (a 40.0% drop). The consistency of these percentage drops — roughly 19-20% from 1080p to 1440p and another 20% from 1440p to 4K — strongly suggests that the GPU is the limiting component across all settings.

If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would show less variation with resolution, as the CPU's load is largely independent of pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops proportionally to the number of pixels rendered (1080p has about 2.07 million pixels, 1440p has 3.69 million, and 4K has 8.29 million). The data shows that moving from 1080p to 1440p increases the pixel count by 78%, yet the FPS only drops by about 20%, which indicates that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound but also limited by other factors like geometry and shading complexity. However, the consistent scaling pattern confirms that the RX 580's compute and memory resources are insufficient to maintain higher frame rates as resolution grows.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce the highest average at 54 FPS, Medium settings yield 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48, High settings deliver 31 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 30 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects do not heavily tax the GPU at this resolution, or that the GPU is already saturated.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 43 FPS for Low, 34 FPS for Medium (with a range of 29 to 39), 25 FPS for High, and 24 FPS for Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, and between Medium and High is another 9 FPS, showing a linear progression. High and Ultra are again nearly identical, with only 1 FPS separating them. This pattern repeats at 3840x2160: Low averages 32 FPS, Medium averages 25 FPS (with a range of 21 to 29), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 18 FPS. The consistent 1 FPS difference between High and Ultra across all resolutions indicates that the Ultra preset's marginal visual improvements come at a negligible performance cost relative to High, but both are significantly slower than Medium.

The data also reveals that the minimum FPS values, where available, are close to the averages. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 36 FPS versus an average of 42, and at 4K Medium, the minimum is 21 FPS versus an average of 25. This narrow spread suggests that frame times are relatively stable, with no severe stuttering or frame drops, but the overall performance is low. The lack of minimum FPS data for Low, High, and Ultra settings means the average values cannot be fully contextualized, but the available ranges indicate consistent performance within each configuration.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the most viable configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 54 FPS. This is the only measured setting that approaches the 60 FPS threshold often desired for smooth gameplay, and it provides a playable experience for a simulation where precision matters. The Low preset at 1080p is recommended for users who prioritize frame rate stability over visual fidelity.

For users who can tolerate lower frame rates, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers an average of 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS. This is a more visually appealing option that still maintains playable performance, provided the user is comfortable with sub-50 FPS averages. The Medium preset at 1440p produces 34 FPS on average, which may be acceptable for less action-intensive scenarios like cruising at altitude, but it will feel sluggish during takeoff or landing when the simulation loads dense scenery.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p, High averages 31 FPS and Ultra averages 30 FPS; at 1440p, they drop to 25 and 24 FPS; and at 4K, they fall to 19 and 18 FPS. These frame rates are below the threshold for a comfortable experience in a flight simulator, where smooth camera movements and responsive controls are essential. The 1 FPS difference between High and Ultra across all resolutions means there is no practical benefit to choosing Ultra over High, but both are severely compromised compared to Medium.

Given the data, the optimal strategy is to use 1920x1080 with Low settings for the best balance of performance and playability. If visual quality is a priority, 1080p Medium is a viable alternative that sacrifices about 12 FPS on average. Users should avoid 1440p and 4K entirely, as even the Low preset at 1440p only reaches 43 FPS, and at 4K it drops to 32 FPS. The RX 580's 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for higher resolutions in this game, and the measured FPS confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor. For this pairing, the recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p and use the Low or Medium preset to maintain a playable frame rate.