Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS for this combo at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combo delivers an average of 42 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13700F?

A: The Ryzen 9 5900X has an average benchmark score of 39453, which is 0.9% higher than the Intel Core i7-13700F's score of 39095, making it the slightly faster processor.

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

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, scores 14389, which is 0.7% higher.

Q: What is the best 4K result for this combination?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 46.5, achieved with Low settings. The Ultra preset at this resolution drops to 24.6 FPS.

Q: How many cores and threads does the CPU have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

---

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor built on the Zen 3 architecture (Vermeer codename) using a 7 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz are supported by a 64 MB L3 cache. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation's complex physics, flight model calculations, and AI traffic — tasks that benefit from both high single-thread performance and substantial multi-threading capacity.

Benchmark data shows this CPU is a strong performer. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 33150 and single-core score of 4680 indicate robust capability across both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 9075 and max-thread score of 10075 suggest the chip scales well with additional threads, which matters for a flight sim that can use multiple cores for weather systems, ground traffic, and scenery streaming. The CPU's 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it well ahead of most desktop processors.

The nearest rivals are close in average score. The AMD EPYC 4245P trails by just 0.2% (39383 vs 39453), while the Intel Core i7-13700F is 0.9% behind. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS and Intel Core i7-13700 are 0.7% and 1% ahead, respectively. This clustering suggests the 5900X sits at the top tier of CPU performance, with no single rival dominating it. In Flight Simulator, where draw-call overhead and simulation thread scheduling are critical, this level of CPU throughput helps maintain playable frame rates even when the GPU is the bottleneck.

The CPU's cache hierarchy — 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus 64 MB shared L3 — is well-suited to the large, streaming world of Flight Simulator. The 8,300 million transistors on a dual-die design (2x 74 mm²) provide ample on-chip resources for handling the game's asset streaming and terrain generation. With PCIe Gen 4 support, the 5900X can feed data to the GPU faster than older platforms, though the GTX 1660 SUPER's PCIe 3.0 interface may cap some of that benefit.

---

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU (chip TU116) built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus yields 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a critical figure for Flight Simulator, which streams high-resolution textures and terrain data continuously. The GPU's 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs are moderate by modern standards, but its 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 performance is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming.

The GPU holds a 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs, meaning it sits near the middle of the pack. Its average benchmark score of 14286 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14314, 0.2% higher), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, 0.2% higher), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389, 0.7% higher). This tight clustering indicates the GTX 1660 SUPER is not a standout performer but is competitive with other mid-range cards of its era. Its PassMark G3D score of 12699 and DirectX 12 score of 50 suggest modest DirectX 12 capability, which is relevant since Flight Simulator uses DX12.

The GPU's clock speeds — 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost — are moderate, and the 125 W TDP with a suggested 300 W PSU indicates it is not power-hungry. In Flight Simulator, the 6 GB VRAM capacity is a potential constraint at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K with Ultra textures, the game may exceed 6 GB of VRAM usage, causing stuttering or texture pop-in. The 336.0 GB/s bandwidth helps mitigate this, but the GPU is clearly the weaker link in this combo when compared to the CPU's top-tier status.

---

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data reveals a clear hierarchy of playable settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 77.8 FPS — the highest average across all resolutions and settings — while Medium delivers 62.7 FPS and High drops to 46.2 FPS. Ultra at 1080p falls to 42 FPS, which is below the often-cited 60 FPS threshold for smooth flight simming. For the best experience at 1080p, Medium settings provide a solid balance, offering 62.7 FPS which remains fluid while retaining more visual fidelity than Low.

At 2560x1440, the story shifts. Low yields 62.8 FPS, but Medium drops to 46.7 FPS, High to 35.7 FPS, and Ultra to 35.6 FPS. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick with Low settings to maintain playable frame rates above 60 FPS, or accept Medium if they prioritize visuals over smoothness. The jump from Low to Medium at 1440p costs 16.1 FPS (a 25.6% drop), which is significant for a game where steady frame pacing matters.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce sub-60 FPS results. Low averages 46.5 FPS, Medium 35.1 FPS, High 27.4 FPS, and Ultra 24.6 FPS. For 4K, the only viable option is Low, and even then the frame rate is borderline. Given these numbers, the best experience for this combo is at 1080p with Medium settings, which balances the GPU's capabilities with the CPU's strength. Users with 1440p monitors should consider Low settings as the default, while 4K is only feasible with Low and even then not ideal.

---

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1579 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 12% of all combinations, which underscores the GPU's limiting role. The CPU is a top-tier part (90th percentile), but the GPU's 55th percentile ranking drags the overall combo down significantly. This disparity is a key finding: the system is heavily unbalanced, with the processor capable of far more than the graphics card can deliver.

The rank of 1579 means that the vast majority of tested combos outperform this pairing in Flight Simulator. This is not surprising given the game's demanding nature and the GTX 1660 SUPER's mid-range status. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a faster GPU would yield dramatically better results, but as configured, the combo underperforms relative to its components' individual strengths. The measured FPS data confirms this — at 1080p Ultra, the system achieves only 42 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target many simmers prefer.

---

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data shows a consistent pattern: lower resolutions and lower settings yield higher frame rates, with diminishing returns as quality increases.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: 77.8 FPS
• Medium: 62.7 FPS
• High: 46.2 FPS
• Ultra: 42 FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low: 62.8 FPS
• Medium: 46.7 FPS
• High: 35.7 FPS
• Ultra: 35.6 FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low: 46.5 FPS
• Medium: 35.1 FPS
• High: 27.4 FPS
• Ultra: 24.6 FPS

The data shows that the gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 35.8 FPS (77.8 vs 42). At 1440p, the gap shrinks to 27.2 FPS (62.8 vs 35.6). At 4K, the gap narrows further to 21.9 FPS (46.5 vs 24.6). This pattern suggests that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes more of a bottleneck, and the impact of quality settings diminishes relative to the raw pixel count.

Notably, at 1440p, High and Ultra produce nearly identical frame rates (35.7 vs 35.6 FPS). This suggests that the GPU is so saturated at this resolution that the difference between these two presets is negligible — the limiting factor is the pixel fill rate, not the settings themselves. Similarly, at 4K, the gap between Medium and High is 7.7 FPS (35.1 vs 27.4), which is larger than the gap between High and Ultra (2.8 FPS). This indicates that Ultra settings at 4K are essentially unplayable, while even High is marginal.

---

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals which component is the bottleneck. At Low settings, going from 1080p (77.8 FPS) to 1440p (62.8 FPS) represents a 19.3% reduction, and then to 4K (46.5 FPS) a further 26.0% reduction — a total drop of 40.2% from 1080p to 4K. At Ultra settings, the drop from 1080p (42 FPS) to 1440p (35.6 FPS) is 15.2%, and to 4K (24.6 FPS) is 30.9% — a total drop of 41.4%.

These percentages are telling. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect resolution to have minimal impact on FPS, since the CPU's workload is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the data shows that FPS scales strongly with resolution — a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K indicates the GPU is the primary limiting factor. The CPU's powerful 12-core, 24-thread configuration is more than capable of feeding the GPU, but the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot keep up with the pixel demands of higher resolutions.

The pattern is consistent across all settings. At Medium, 1080p yields 62.7 FPS, 1440p yields 46.7 FPS, and 4K yields 35.1 FPS — a total drop of 44.0%. At High, the drop from 1080p (46.2 FPS) to 4K (27.4 FPS) is 40.7%. This uniformity suggests that the GPU's fill-rate and memory bandwidth constraints are the dominant factor, regardless of quality preset. The data implies that users who want to play at higher resolutions would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than any CPU change, since the 5900X is already near the top of its class. The CPU's 0.2% to 1% delta from its nearest rivals indicates it is not the weak link in this system.