Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D compare to its closest rivals in overall CPU benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 9850X3D posts an average benchmark score of 58,386, placing it in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs. It sits within a tight pack of competitors: it is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323), 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115), but 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon w5-2545 (58,504) and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (58,826).

Q: What is the GPU's performance tier relative to other graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26,011, placing it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within a 1.1% margin: it is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25,891), 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856), 0.7% ahead of the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740).

Q: What memory specifications does this CPU and GPU combination use?

A: The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The GPU uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU has 8 cores, 16 threads, and a total of 96 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 9850X3D a recent product with current platform support?

A: The CPU was released on 2026-01-28 and is still in active production. It uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform with PCIe Gen 5 (24 lanes from the CPU). It is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node with Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge codename). The launch MSRP is $499.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested CPU+GPU pairings in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1304th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the upper-middle range of all combinations tested, indicating a balanced but not top-tier setup for this title.

Q: What are the key clock speeds for both the CPU and GPU in this pairing?

A: The CPU has a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The GPU has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The GPU memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware combination reveals a clear pattern: the Low preset is the only setting that consistently delivers high frame rates across all resolutions, while Ultra remains playable but approaches the lower boundary of comfort.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 127 FPS average, which is exceptionally smooth for a flight simulator where camera pans and dense scenery can cause sudden frame drops. Medium follows at 99 FPS, still well above the 60 FPS threshold. High drops to 74 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 71 FPS. For 1080p users, the sweet spot is Medium: it maintains nearly triple-digit frame rates while providing noticeably better visual quality than Low. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal (only 3 FPS), so if you are on a 60 Hz monitor, either works, but High offers a small headroom advantage.

At 2560x1440, the scaling is similar but compressed. Low delivers 102 FPS, Medium 79 FPS, High 60 FPS, and Ultra 57 FPS. Here, Medium is the recommended preset for most users. It provides a 34% improvement over High while keeping the average above 75 FPS. The 1440p Medium setting is the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness for this resolution, as the 79 FPS average gives enough headroom for the occasional stutter that flight simulators are prone to when loading new terrain tiles. Ultra at 57 FPS is borderline; it works for slower aircraft or VFR flying, but it will feel choppy during fast maneuvers or in dense urban areas.

At 3840x2160, the choices become more constrained. Low is the only preset that clears 60 FPS, hitting 75 FPS. Medium manages 59 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold, while High and Ultra fall to 44 FPS and 42 FPS respectively. For 4K, the recommendation is Low if you prioritize smoothness, or Medium if you can tolerate occasional dips to 50 FPS (the recorded minimum). Running High or Ultra at 4K with this GPU is not advisable; the 44 FPS and 42 FPS averages indicate the GPU is heavily saturated.

The best overall experience for this combo is 1440p Medium. It delivers a 79 FPS average with a minimum of 68 FPS and maximum of 91 FPS, meaning the frame time variance is tight enough to feel consistent. This preset captures the visual richness of the simulator without sacrificing the fluid camera movement that flight sims demand. If you play in VR or with head tracking, the 1080p Low preset at 127 FPS is the safest choice to prevent motion sickness from frame pacing issues.

# Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K tells a clear story about which component is the limiting factor at each resolution. At Low settings, the averages are 127 FPS (1080p), 102 FPS (1440p), and 75 FPS (4K). The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.7%, and from 1440p to 4K is another 26.5%. This is a moderate scaling curve that suggests the CPU is still contributing significantly even at lower settings — flight simulators are notoriously CPU-bound due to their complex physics and AI traffic calculations.

At Medium settings, the pattern shifts. The averages are 99 FPS (1080p), 79 FPS (1440p), and 59 FPS (4K). The percentage drops are 20.2% from 1080p to 1440p, then 25.3% from 1440p to 4K. The consistent ~20% drop from 1080p to 1440p across Low and Medium indicates that the CPU is still keeping pace; the workload is scaling predictably with pixel count.

At High settings, the averages are 74 FPS (1080p), 60 FPS (1440p), and 44 FPS (4K). The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 18.9%, but from 1440p to 4K it jumps to 26.7%. This widening gap at higher resolutions is the first sign that the GPU is becoming the bottleneck. At Ultra settings, the averages are 71 FPS (1080p), 57 FPS (1440p), and 42 FPS (4K). The 4K Ultra figure is only 59% of the 1080p Ultra figure, and the GPU is clearly saturated.

The data indicates a dual-phase bottleneck. At 1080p and 1440p, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D's strong single-threaded performance (evidenced by its 4704 Passmark single-thread score) keeps the CPU from being the primary constraint, allowing the GPU to work at its full capacity. However, the RX 6750 XT's 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate start to hit their limits as the resolution climbs. By 4K, the GPU is the undeniable limiting factor — the difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 33 FPS (75 vs 42), whereas at 1080p that same spread is 56 FPS (127 vs 71).

The min FPS data at Medium settings reinforces this. At 1080p, the minimum is 84 FPS; at 1440p, it is 68 FPS; at 4K, it is 50 FPS. The frame time consistency degrades as resolution increases, which is typical of a GPU that is running out of fillrate and memory bandwidth. The 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth on the RX 6750 XT is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the larger texture sets and higher pixel throughput demand more bandwidth than the 192-bit bus can supply.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT achieves a rank of 1304 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 56.5th percentile of all tested pairings — slightly above the median but not in the upper echelon.

This ranking is interesting because the CPU alone sits in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU alone sits in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The combo rank is dragged down by the GPU's relative weakness compared to the CPU's strength. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is heavily CPU-dependent due to its real-time weather simulation, AI aircraft, and complex flight models, one might expect the strong CPU to boost the ranking. However, the data shows that the GPU still imposes a ceiling on overall performance, especially at higher resolutions where the 4K results drop to 44 FPS on High and 42 FPS on Ultra.

The rank of 1304 suggests that this combo is a middle-of-the-pack option for this specific title. It outperforms many combinations that pair weaker CPUs with stronger GPUs, but it also falls short of combos that feature both high-end CPUs and high-end GPUs. The 0.1% to 0.7% delta between the CPU and its nearest rivals indicates that swapping the CPU for a slightly different model would not meaningfully change the ranking. Conversely, upgrading the GPU to a faster card would likely produce a much larger jump in the combo rank, given that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing.

For practical purposes, this rank means the combo is well-suited for 1080p and 1440p play at Medium to High settings, but it will not excel at 4K. The 2996 total combos tested include a wide range of hardware, and being in the 44th percentile from the top is a respectable showing for a mid-range GPU paired with an upper-mid-range CPU.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT plays a critical role in determining the playable envelope for this combo. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at most settings but becomes strained at 4K. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), and the GPU has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a game clock of 2495 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz.

The 40 ray tracing cores and 2560 shading units are present, but Microsoft Flight Simulator does not heavily utilize ray tracing, so the 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the more relevant metric. The pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s determine how quickly the GPU can fill the screen with rendered terrain and aircraft.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's performance ceiling clearly. At 1080p Low, the GPU can push 127 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 42 FPS. The scaling from Medium to High at each resolution is revealing: at 1080p, the drop is 25 FPS (99 to 74); at 1440p, it is 19 FPS (79 to 60); at 4K, it is 15 FPS (59 to 44). The shrinking delta as resolution increases indicates that the GPU is running out of compute and bandwidth headroom — the difference between settings presets becomes less pronounced because the GPU is already saturated.

The 12 GB VRAM is adequate for this game at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the larger textures and higher draw distances can push memory usage near the limit. The 192-bit bus width is the structural bottleneck here; a wider bus would allow more efficient memory access at high resolutions. The GPU's 71st percentile ranking among all GPUs aligns with its measured performance in this title — it is a solid mid-range card that delivers playable frame rates at 1440p Medium (79 FPS) but cannot sustain high refresh rates at 4K.

The GPU's end-of-life production status and 250 W TDP are practical considerations. The suggested PSU of 600 W is comfortable for this pairing with the 120 W TDP CPU. In the context of this combo, the GPU is the component that users should consider upgrading first if they want better 4K performance, as the CPU has ample headroom (evidenced by its 92nd percentile ranking) to support a faster graphics card.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 127 FPS, Medium produces 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS and maximum of 113 FPS, High produces 74 FPS, and Ultra produces 71 FPS. The 1080p results show a wide spread of 56 FPS between the lowest and highest presets, giving users significant flexibility. The Medium preset's minimum of 84 FPS ensures that even in dense scenarios, the frame rate stays well above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 102 FPS, Medium 79 FPS (minimum 68 FPS, maximum 91 FPS), High 60 FPS, and Ultra 57 FPS. The 1440p spread narrows to 45 FPS between Low and Ultra. The High preset at exactly 60 FPS is workable but leaves no headroom for frame drops, while the Medium preset's minimum of 68 FPS provides a more comfortable buffer.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 75 FPS, Medium 59 FPS (minimum 50 FPS, maximum 67 FPS), High 44 FPS, and Ultra 42 FPS. The 4K spread compresses further to 33 FPS between Low and Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 50 FPS, which is borderline for smooth gameplay but may cause noticeable stuttering in complex scenarios. The High and Ultra presets at 4K are effectively unplayable for competitive or smooth flight, with averages in the low-to-mid 40s.

The data across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: the Medium preset offers the best balance of average FPS and minimum FPS stability. The minimum FPS values for Medium (84 at 1080p, 68 at 1440p, 50 at 4K) demonstrate that this preset maintains a tighter frame time distribution than High or Ultra, which lack recorded minimums but have much lower averages. The maximum FPS values for Medium (113 at 1080p, 91 at 1440p, 67 at 4K) indicate there is still headroom for less demanding scenes, such as cruising at altitude over open water.

For users prioritizing a locked 60 FPS experience, the data suggests 1440p Medium is the highest quality preset that reliably achieves this target across the board. At 1080p, even Ultra (71 FPS) can sustain 60 FPS, but Medium (99 FPS) is recommended for those with 144 Hz monitors. At 4K, only Low (75 FPS) can consistently exceed 60 FPS, while Medium (59 FPS) will dip below the threshold in demanding moments.