Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER delivers a playable, though not flawless, experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a combination that is heavily dependent on settings and resolution, with the GPU acting as the primary constraint at higher resolutions while the CPU’s strong single-thread performance keeps frame rates respectable at lower settings. The measured frames per second across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K reveal a clear hierarchy: Low settings provide smooth performance, Medium is the practical sweet spot, and High or Ultra settings push the system toward borderline playability. The combo ranks 2058th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of systems tested for this flight simulator.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data strongly indicates that Medium settings offer the best balance between visual fidelity and smooth gameplay for this specific CPU-GPU pairing. At 1920x1080, Medium produces an average of 78 FPS with a minimum of 67 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold that most users target for a smooth simulation experience, and the minimum frame rate suggests that even during complex scenes, the system maintains playable performance. Moving up to High settings at the same resolution drops the average to 59 FPS, which is borderline — playable but with occasional dips that could be noticeable during dense scenery or weather effects. Ultra settings at 1080p yield an average of 56 FPS, which is below the preferred 60 FPS mark and leaves little headroom for demanding scenarios.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern emerges. Medium settings deliver an average of 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 73 FPS. This is still acceptable, though the minimum frame rate of 54 FPS suggests that some scenes will stutter. High settings at 1440p drop to 47 FPS average, which is noticeably less smooth. Low settings at 1440p produce 81 FPS average, but the visual compromise is significant for a game where terrain detail and cockpit readability matter. For 4K resolution, the story changes entirely — Medium settings yield 47 FPS average with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. This is marginal for a flight simulator, where precise control inputs benefit from higher frame rates. Low settings at 4K achieve 60 FPS average, but the reduction in draw distance and texture quality undermines the purpose of running at such a high resolution.

The recommendation is clear: for the best experience per the measured rows, use Medium settings. This applies across all three resolutions. At 1080p, Medium provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Medium keeps the average above 60 FPS, albeit with a lower minimum. At 4K, Medium is the highest setting that remains playable, though users should expect frame rates in the 40s during demanding sections. A practical approach is to start with Medium and adjust individual settings upward if the scene allows, but the data does not support High or Ultra as a primary configuration for this hardware.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is the limiting factor in this configuration, particularly at higher resolutions. The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. Its boost clock is 1650 MHz with a base clock of 1470 MHz. The card is built on the Turing architecture with 2176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. It also includes 34 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, though Microsoft Flight Simulator does not heavily utilize ray tracing in the measured settings.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the tested settings, as evidenced by the measured FPS values. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate drops to 33 FPS, which suggests the GPU is struggling with the combined load of high-resolution textures and complex geometry. The 12 nm process node and die size of 445 mm² contribute to a thermal and power profile that is manageable, but the card’s overall performance is dated compared to newer architectures. The GPU’s percentile ranking of 62 among all tested GPUs places it slightly above average, but its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (with a deltaPct of -0.4) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (deltaPct of -0.5), indicating that the RTX 2060 SUPER is performance-adjacent to mobile and professional parts.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced as resolution increases. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at 4K is 27 FPS (60 FPS vs 33 FPS), which is a 45% drop in performance. This indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by the higher graphical workloads, and the 8 GB VRAM may be a bottleneck for texture streaming at 4K Ultra. The measured data does not include VRAM usage, but the performance degradation from 4K Low to 4K Ultra suggests that the card’s memory bandwidth and compute capabilities are insufficient for the highest settings. For users seeking to maximize visual quality, the RTX 2060 SUPER will require compromises — either dropping to 1440p or accepting lower settings at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 78 at 1920x1080 to 63 at 2560x1440, and further to 47 at 3840x2160. This represents a 19% decrease from 1080p to 1440p, and a 40% decrease from 1080p to 4K. The trend is similar for High settings: 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. Low settings show the same pattern: 101 FPS at 1080p, 81 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most affected: 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K.

This scaling indicates that the system is GPU-limited at higher resolutions. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at 1080p, but as resolution increases, the GPU’s rendering workload grows faster than the CPU’s frame generation rate. The fact that Low settings at 4K achieve 60 FPS while Medium settings at 4K drop to 47 FPS underscores the GPU’s sensitivity to texture and shading quality. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings also scale predictably: 67 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 40 FPS at 4K. These minimums are important because they represent the worst-case scenarios during complex scenes, such as flying over dense cityscapes or through cloud layers.

The resolution scaling data suggests that 1080p is the most comfortable resolution for this combo, with all settings except Ultra remaining above 56 FPS. At 1440p, Medium is the highest playable setting, with High and Ultra dipping below 50 FPS. At 4K, only Low and Medium are viable, and even Medium’s minimum of 40 FPS may cause noticeable stuttering. The limiting component is clearly the GPU, as the CPU’s performance does not change with resolution, yet the FPS drops consistently. For users with 1440p displays, the data recommends Medium settings as the best tradeoff. For 4K displays, users should accept Low settings or consider upgrading the GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. At 1920x1080, the average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 101 FPS, Medium produces 78 FPS (with a minimum of 67 FPS and maximum of 90 FPS), High produces 59 FPS, and Ultra produces 56 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 23 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end. The minimum FPS at Medium is 67 FPS, which is still above the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that the system maintains playability even during demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 81 FPS, Medium yields 63 FPS (minimum 54 FPS, maximum 73 FPS), High yields 47 FPS, and Ultra yields 45 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 18 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium drops to 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target but still playable for most users. High and Ultra settings at 1440p are marginal for a flight simulator, where smooth camera movement is essential for situational awareness.

At 3840x2160, Low settings produce 60 FPS, Medium produces 47 FPS (minimum 40 FPS, maximum 54 FPS), High produces 35 FPS, and Ultra produces 33 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 2 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium is 40 FPS, which may cause visible stuttering during complex scenes. High and Ultra settings at 4K are below 35 FPS, which is generally considered unplayable for a flight simulator. The data shows a clear trend: the RTX 2060 SUPER can handle Low settings at all resolutions, Medium settings up to 1440p comfortably and at 4K marginally, but High and Ultra settings are only viable at 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER combination ranks 2058th out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 31st percentile, meaning roughly 69% of tested combinations perform better in this game. The rank is influenced by the GPU’s age and performance class, as the RTX 2060 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 18093 places it in the 62nd percentile among all GPUs, but its nearest rivals include the RTX 3060 Mobile (deltaPct of -0.4) and the Radeon Pro 5700 (deltaPct of -0.5). The CPU, by contrast, is a strong performer — the Ryzen 7 9850X3D has an average benchmark score of 58386, placing it in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs.

The combo’s rank of 2058 out of 2996 suggests that while the CPU is capable, the GPU drags down overall performance in this game. The measured FPS values confirm this: at 1080p Medium, the system achieves 78 FPS, which is decent but not exceptional for a modern setup. Many competing combinations with newer GPUs would likely achieve higher frame rates at similar settings. The deltaPct values for the GPU’s nearest rivals show that the RTX 2060 SUPER is within 2% of the RTX 3060 Mobile and the Radeon Pro 5700, but those are not desktop gaming cards — they are mobile or professional parts. This indicates that the RTX 2060 SUPER is competitive with mid-range hardware from a few years ago, but it lags behind current-generation desktop GPUs.

For users considering this combo, the rank serves as a warning: expect performance in the lower third of tested systems. The CPU is not the bottleneck — its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache are well-suited for flight simulation, which benefits from strong single-thread performance. The GPU, however, is the limiting factor, and users should temper their expectations for high settings or high resolutions. The data shows that the combo can deliver a playable experience, but only with careful settings management.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D plays a supporting role in this configuration, but it is not the source of performance bottlenecks in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. It is built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using a 4 nm process node from TSMC, with a die size of 70.6 mm² and 8,315 million transistors. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache. This large L3 cache is beneficial for flight simulator workloads, which often involve streaming large amounts of terrain and aircraft data.

The CPU’s benchmark results support its capability. In Cinebench R23, it scores 22807 in multicore and 2228 in single-core. The single-core score is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance. The PassMark single-thread score of 4704 further confirms strong per-core performance. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 92 among all CPUs places it in the top 8% of processors tested, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900 (deltaPct of 0.5) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (deltaPct of 0.1). This indicates that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is competitive with high-end desktop and server processors.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU’s role is evident in the relatively small performance gaps between resolutions at Low settings. For example, at Low settings, the FPS drops from 101 at 1080p to 81 at 1440p to 60 at 4K. These drops are primarily GPU-driven, but the fact that 1080p Low achieves 101 FPS shows that the CPU can generate frames faster than the GPU can render them at lower resolutions. The CPU’s 5.60 GHz boost clock and 96 MB L3 cache help maintain consistent frame pacing, especially in scenarios where the simulation logic (weather, AI traffic, physics) is computationally intensive.

However, the CPU’s performance is not fully utilized in this combo because the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher settings. At 4K Ultra, the FPS drops to 33, which is far below what the CPU is capable of delivering. The data suggests that the Ryzen 7 9850X3D has significant headroom for a more powerful GPU, and users who upgrade the GPU in the future would see substantial FPS gains without needing to change the CPU. For this particular combo, the CPU ensures that frame rates are not CPU-limited at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the GPU takes over as the limiting factor. The CPU’s 120 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory (with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s) are additional factors that contribute to its overall capability, though they do not directly appear in the measured FPS data.