Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 in a configuration that ranks 41st out of 1795 tested combos for this title, placing it in the top 2.3% of all systems measured. The data shows a platform built around a 12-core, 24-thread Zen 3 processor and a flagship Blackwell 2.0 GPU, producing frame rates that range from 79.4 FPS at 4K Ultra to 181.7 FPS at 1080p Low. This analysis walks through the measured results to explain how each component contributes to the experience, where the bottlenecks lie, and which settings deliver the best balance.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X provides 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. This processor, built on the Zen 3 architecture (codename Vermeer) using TSMC's 7 nm process, sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 39453. In synthetic tests, its multi-threaded strength is evident: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 33150, while the single-core score is 4680. This combination of high core count and strong per-core performance matters for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic alongside multi-threaded rendering tasks.

Benchmark data shows the 5900X's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4245P (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i7-13700F (0.9% behind), and Intel Core i7-13700 (1% behind). The processor's 64 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) provide adequate data throughput for the simulator's streaming of terrain and aircraft models. At 1080p resolution, where CPU load is proportionally higher, the 5900X demonstrates its capability: the measured FPS at Low settings reaches 181.7, and at High settings it maintains 142.9. These figures suggest the processor has enough headroom to feed the RTX 5090 even at lower resolutions, though the gap between 1080p and 4K results (detailed later) indicates the CPU becomes less of a limiting factor as resolution increases.

The transistor count of 8,300 million across a die size of 2x 74 mm² highlights the efficiency of the 7 nm node, but the TDP of 105 W and launch MSRP of $549 position it as a high-end desktop part from the 5000 series. For this simulation, the 12-core layout ensures that background tasks, AI traffic, and physics calculations have dedicated threads, while the boost clock of 4.80 GHz handles the primary flight model. The data shows no signs of CPU bottlenecking at 4K, where the GPU takes over as the primary performance driver.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Across all three resolutions, the "Ultra" preset delivers the lowest frame rates, while "Low" provides the highest. At 1080p, the progression is linear: Low (181.7 FPS), Medium (167.1 FPS), High (142.9 FPS), and Ultra (133.8 FPS). The step from Medium to High costs 24.2 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 9.1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end. At 1440p, the pattern shifts: Low (167.8 FPS), Medium (151.9 FPS), High (112.6 FPS), and Ultra (104.7 FPS). Here, the drop from Medium to High is a substantial 39.3 FPS, making Medium the sweet spot for smoothness. At 4K, the order is Low (140.7 FPS), Medium (110.2 FPS), High (82.5 FPS), and Ultra (79.4 FPS). The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 3.1 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds visual complexity without a proportional performance penalty at this resolution.

For the best experience, the data suggests that Medium settings at 1440p (151.9 FPS) offer an excellent balance, as they stay above 150 FPS while providing more visual fidelity than Low. At 4K, High settings (82.5 FPS) are playable, but Ultra (79.4 FPS) is only marginally slower and likely adds significant visual improvements. The 1080p Ultra result of 133.8 FPS is still highly playable, but the 24.2 FPS cost over Medium makes Medium the more efficient choice at that resolution. Notably, the 4K Low result of 140.7 FPS is higher than the 1080p High result of 142.9 FPS, which is unusual and suggests that at 4K Low, the load is distributed differently, allowing the GPU to stretch its legs.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured data reveals a clear resolution scaling pattern. At Low settings, FPS drops from 181.7 (1080p) to 167.8 (1440p) to 140.7 (4K), a total reduction of 41.0 FPS (22.6%) from the lowest to highest resolution. At Medium, the drop is from 167.1 to 151.9 to 110.2, a 56.9 FPS reduction (34.0%). At High, the numbers go from 142.9 to 112.6 to 82.5, a 60.4 FPS reduction (42.3%). At Ultra, the progression is 133.8 to 104.7 to 79.4, a 54.4 FPS reduction (40.7%). The percentage drops grow larger as settings increase, which indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions and quality presets.

The RTX 5090's massive 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus (1.79 TB/s bandwidth) is clearly capable of handling 4K textures, but the rendering load at 4K Ultra (79.4 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (133.8 FPS) shows a 40.7% performance penalty. This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. However, the 1080p results show less differentiation between settings (181.7 at Low versus 133.8 at Ultra, a 26.4% gap) compared to 4K (140.7 versus 79.4, a 43.6% gap). This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU and memory subsystem are sharing the load, while at 4K, the GPU's pixel throughput and shading units (21760) become the primary constraint. The fact that 4K Low (140.7 FPS) outperforms 1080p High (142.9 FPS) by a small margin is noteworthy, as it implies the simulator's engine scales efficiently with resolution when settings are low, possibly due to reduced CPU-side draw calls.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves a rank of 41 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 2.3% of all systems. This is a strong showing, but the rank is not the absolute top, which suggests that other CPU-GPU pairings can extract slightly more performance from this title. The GPU itself ranks in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84306, while the CPU ranks in the 90th percentile. The combo's rank of 41 indicates that the pairing is well-balanced, but the gap between the CPU's 90th percentile and the GPU's 94th percentile suggests the GPU is the stronger component in this equation.

The nearest rivals for the CPU include the AMD EPYC 4245P (0.2% higher average score) and Intel Core i7-13700 (1% higher), which could potentially push the combo higher in the rankings if paired with the same GPU. For the GPU, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D (0.1% higher), which is essentially the same chip, and the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (1.6% lower). The data indicates that this combo is near the top of what is achievable, and the rank of 41 out of 1795 reflects the high-end nature of both components. The measured FPS data, particularly the 4K Ultra result of 79.4 FPS, shows that this system is capable of running the simulator at high visual fidelity with playable frame rates, but it is not the absolute fastest configuration tested.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture (chip GB202) using TSMC's 5 nm process, with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. It features a base clock of 2017 MHz and a boost clock of 2407 MHz, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus provides 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator's vast streaming environments. With 21760 shading units, 680 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, the GPU delivers 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, making it one of the most powerful consumer graphics cards available.

The GPU's benchmark results show a Passmark G3D score of 39650 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 380114, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 5090 D (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (1.3% ahead), though these are minor differences. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role becomes dominant at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the 79.4 FPS result is likely limited by the GPU's pixel and texture throughput, while the 32 GB VRAM ensures that even the most detailed scenery packs fit comfortably in memory. The GPU's TDP of 575 W and suggested PSU of 950 W indicate a power-hungry part, but the performance data justifies this. The 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores also contribute to any ray-traced or DLSS features the simulator may use, though the measured FPS data does not specify whether these features were enabled.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low 181.7, Medium 167.1, High 142.9, Ultra 133.8. The spread from Low to Ultra is 47.9 FPS, representing a 26.4% performance penalty for maximum visual quality. The 1080p results show the highest absolute frame rates, with Low exceeding 180 FPS, which is well above typical display refresh rates. Medium at 167.1 FPS and High at 142.9 FPS both remain highly playable, while Ultra at 133.8 FPS is still smooth. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are both contributing significantly, as the FPS differences between settings are relatively moderate.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 167.8, Medium 151.9, High 112.6, Ultra 104.7. The drop from Medium to High (39.3 FPS) is the largest single-step penalty across all resolutions, indicating that High settings at 1440p introduce a significant rendering load jump. Low and Medium both exceed 150 FPS, while High and Ultra fall below 113 FPS. The Ultra result of 104.7 FPS is still playable but shows a 37.6% reduction from Low. This resolution appears to be where the GPU starts to dominate, as the 4K-like rendering load begins to tax the 21760 shading units.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 140.7, Medium 110.2, High 82.5, Ultra 79.4. The 4K data shows the largest relative spread, with Low being 77.3% higher than Ultra. The step from Medium to High (27.7 FPS) is again the largest, while High to Ultra (3.1 FPS) is minimal. The 4K Low result of 140.7 FPS is notably high, suggesting the GPU can handle 4K easily when settings are reduced. However, the Ultra result of 79.4 FPS is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset, indicating that maximum quality at 4K pushes the GPU to its limits. The data shows that for 4K gaming, Medium (110.2 FPS) offers the best balance, as High (82.5 FPS) and Ultra (79.4 FPS) provide diminishing returns for the performance cost.