Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 963rd out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it roughly in the 68th percentile of all tested setups for this game.

Q: Which resolution provides the highest average frame rate for this combination?

A: The highest measured average is 179 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, Medium settings deliver 137 FPS, High delivers 115 FPS, and Ultra delivers 88 FPS.

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 9850X3D scores 58,386 on average benchmarks, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323) and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115). It trails the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 by 0.7% (58,826) and the Intel Xeon w5-2545 by 0.2% (58,504).

Q: Are there frame time consistency data available across settings?

A: Yes, only the Medium preset includes min and max FPS values. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 40 to 55 FPS with an average of 48. At 2560x1440 Medium, it ranges from 75 to 101 FPS with an average of 88. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 116 to 157 FPS, averaging 137.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested GPUs?

A: The RX 7600 XT sits at the 60th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17,083. It performs within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17,208) and 0.3% above the GTX 690 (17,037).

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear picture of how preset choices affect playability. For users prioritizing smooth frame rates, the Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers the highest average at 179 FPS, which is ideal for maximum fluidity in a flight simulator where camera panning across dense scenery can cause stutters. However, this comes at the cost of visual fidelity.

The Medium preset offers the best balance of performance and quality. At 1920x1080, it averages 137 FPS with a minimum of 116 FPS, ensuring consistent frame delivery above common refresh rate thresholds. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average drops to 88 FPS with a minimum of 75 FPS, which remains playable for most users. The High preset at 1920x1080 still achieves 115 FPS average, but at 2560x1440 it falls to 74 FPS, and at 4K it drops to 40 FPS.

For 4K displays, the data shows a steep trade-off. Ultra at 3840x2160 averages only 30 FPS, which is likely too low for comfortable simulation. High at 4K improves to 40 FPS, but Medium at 4K reaches 48 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS. Given the data, the Medium preset across all resolutions provides the most reliable experience—it maintains playable averages while offering better visual detail than Low. Users with high refresh rate monitors at 1080p should consider Medium (137 FPS) over High (115 FPS) to leave headroom for complex scenes. At 1440p, Medium (88 FPS) is the recommended compromise; High (74 FPS) is acceptable but closer to the edge. At 4K, Medium (48 FPS) is the highest playable setting, as Ultra drops below 30 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT achieves rank 963 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it within the top third of all configurations, which is notable given the game's reputation for heavy CPU and GPU demands.

The CPU itself ranks at the 92nd percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 58,386. This places it in rarefied air—its nearest rivals are high-end server and desktop chips like the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323, 0.1% behind) and the Intel Xeon w5-2545 (58,504, 0.2% ahead). The Ryzen 7 9850X3D slightly outperforms the Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115) by 0.5%, showing it competes directly with flagship desktop silicon.

The GPU, however, is more modest. The RX 7600 XT ranks at the 60th percentile among GPUs, with an average score of 17,083. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17,208, 0.7% ahead), while it sits 0.3% above the GTX 690 (17,037) and 0.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019). This indicates the GPU is mid-range in absolute terms.

The gap between the CPU's high percentile (92nd) and the GPU's moderate percentile (60th) suggests the combo's rank is constrained by graphics processing. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on both single-threaded CPU performance for simulation logic and GPU throughput for rendering, the CPU has headroom while the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The combo's 963rd rank out of 2996 reflects this imbalance—it outperforms many combos with weaker CPUs but is held back by the GPU's mid-range positioning.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with Medium including min and max frame rates.

1920x1080:

• Low: 179 FPS average
• Medium: 137 FPS average (min 116, max 157)
• High: 115 FPS average
• Ultra: 88 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 115 FPS average
• Medium: 88 FPS average (min 75, max 101)
• High: 74 FPS average
• Ultra: 56 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 62 FPS average
• Medium: 48 FPS average (min 40, max 55)
• High: 40 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

At 1080p, the progression from Low to Ultra shows a 51% reduction in frame rate (179 to 88 FPS). The step from Low to Medium costs 42 FPS, while Medium to High costs 22 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 27 FPS. The Medium preset's min of 116 FPS indicates the system rarely drops below smooth thresholds at this resolution.

At 1440p, the same progression shows a 51% reduction (115 to 56 FPS). Low to Medium drops 27 FPS, Medium to High drops 14 FPS, and High to Ultra drops 18 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 75 FPS remains playable but shows more variance than at 1080p.

At 4K, the drop is steeper. Low averages 62 FPS, which is the only setting above 60 FPS. Medium averages 48 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS, while High and Ultra fall to 40 and 30 FPS respectively. This resolution clearly stresses the GPU, as even Low settings cannot maintain high frame rates.

The data reveals that the scaling between settings is non-linear. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Medium (42 FPS) is larger than between Medium and High (22 FPS), suggesting the CPU can handle the low-end settings easily but the GPU becomes more involved as quality increases. At 4K, the gaps compress (14 FPS between Low and Medium, 8 FPS between Medium and High, 10 FPS between High and Ultra), indicating the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. It contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The GPU has 32 ray tracing cores and delivers 22.57 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its pixel rate is 176.3 GPixel/s and texture rate is 352.6 GTexel/s.

The GPU's memory configuration is a key asset: 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. This is substantial for a mid-range card, and in Microsoft Flight Simulator—which loads vast terrain and airport scenery—the capacity helps avoid texture streaming hitches. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds are notable: base 1980 MHz, game clock 2470 MHz, and boost 2755 MHz. The boost clock of 2755 MHz is aggressive for a 190 W TDP card, and it allows the GPU to maintain high throughput in less demanding scenes. The card's power connector is a single 8-pin, with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

In this game, the GPU's role becomes evident in the resolution scaling. At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 179 FPS, but the CPU's strong single-thread performance (5.60 GHz boost) allows the GPU to stretch its legs. However, at 4K Ultra, the GPU drops to 30 FPS, indicating it cannot keep up with the pixel throughput required. The 16 GB VRAM is not the constraint—rather, the 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth limit the fill rate at high resolutions.

The GPU's benchmark scores show it is competitive with older high-end cards. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 92,426 and Vulkan score of 48,366 indicate solid compute capability. In DirectX 12 (PassMark score 65) and DirectX 11 (167), the scores are lower relative to its G3D score of 17,132, suggesting the card's drivers may favor certain APIs. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which uses DirectX 12, the GPU's performance is adequate for medium settings at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles beyond that.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D is a desktop processor from the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It has 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The CPU includes 80 KB L1 cache per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a 96 MB shared L3 cache, totaling a large cache pool that benefits flight simulation workloads.

The CPU's TDP is 120 W, and it supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration, providing 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. It uses the AMD Socket AM5 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes. The chip includes integrated Radeon Graphics, though the discrete GPU handles rendering. It also supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Benchmark results show the CPU's strength in multi-threaded tasks: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22,807 and single-core of 2,228. PassMark multi-thread score is 41,318, with single-thread at 4,704. The data compression score (474,501) and encryption score (22,856) reflect solid general-purpose performance. The CPU's percentile rank of 92nd among all processors confirms its high-end positioning.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical for the simulation loop—physics, AI traffic, and weather calculations. The 5.60 GHz boost clock and large L3 cache (96 MB) help maintain frame rates in complex scenarios. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the CPU can push 179 FPS, meaning it is not the bottleneck at lower settings. However, the CPU's performance ceiling is high enough that it does not constrain the GPU until 4K, where the GPU's limitations dominate.

The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (0.1% behind in average score) and the Intel Core i9-14900 (0.5% behind), indicating it trades blows with top-tier desktop and server chips. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22,807 is competitive, though not class-leading. For this game, the CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2,228) is more relevant, as flight simulators often rely on a few heavily loaded threads.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals how the system scales from 1080p to 4K, and this scaling tells a clear story about the limiting component.

At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 179 at 1080p to 115 at 1440p (a 36% reduction) and then to 62 at 4K (a 46% reduction from 1440p). This steep decline suggests the GPU is increasingly stressed as pixel count grows. At 1080p, the CPU can feed the GPU enough frames to reach 179 FPS, but at 4K, the GPU's fill rate (176.3 GPixel/s) becomes the bottleneck, halving the frame rate.

At Medium settings, the averages are 137 FPS at 1080p, 88 at 1440p (36% drop), and 48 at 4K (45% drop from 1440p). The min FPS values (116, 75, 40) show a similar pattern, indicating consistent scaling. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is nearly identical to the gap between 1440p and 4K in percentage terms, suggesting a linear relationship with pixel count.

At High settings, the drop from 1080p (115 FPS) to 1440p (74 FPS) is 36%, and from 1440p to 4K (40 FPS) is 46%. This mirrors the Low and Medium patterns. At Ultra, the values are 88 FPS at 1080p, 56 at 1440p (36% drop), and 30 at 4K (46% drop). The consistency of these percentages across all settings is striking: roughly a 36% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a 46% reduction from 1440p to 4K, regardless of quality preset.

This uniformity indicates that the scaling is resolution-driven rather than settings-driven. The GPU's 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are the primary constraints at higher resolutions. The CPU, with its 96 MB L3 cache and 5.60 GHz boost, has enough headroom to maintain simulation logic even at 4K—the frame rate drops are purely a function of the GPU's inability to render more pixels.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 91 FPS (179 vs 88); at 1440p, it's 59 FPS (115 vs 56); at 4K, it's 32 FPS (62 vs 30). This compression means that at 4K, choosing Ultra over Low costs only 32 FPS, but the visual quality gain is substantial. Conversely, at 1080p, the cost of Ultra over Low is 91 FPS, making Low or Medium more practical for high-refresh-rate displays.

The limiting component is clearly the GPU at all resolutions above 1080p. At 1080p, the CPU can deliver up to 179 FPS on Low, but the GPU's performance ceiling caps Ultra at 88 FPS. As resolution increases, the GPU's bottleneck becomes more pronounced, and the CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2,228) cannot compensate. For users with 1080p displays, the system offers excellent headroom; for 1440p, it's adequate for Medium; for 4K, only Low settings remain playable above 60 FPS.