Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the pairing of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces a specific, measurable performance profile. The data indicates a system that is capable of smooth gameplay at mainstream resolutions but begins to show its limits when pushed to maximum settings or 4K. This analysis breaks down the CPU and GPU roles, answers common questions, and provides a clear path for optimal settings based strictly on the measured results.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, known by the codename Vermeer. It operates with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, drawing a 105 W TDP. This is a high-end desktop part from the 5000 series, released on 2020-11-04, and it ranks in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs in our database. Its performance is substantial, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 38607 and a single-core score of 5450, indicating that it has both the multi-threaded muscle and the single-thread strength that flight simulators often require.

For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which simulates vast landscapes and complex physics, the CPU is critical for handling the simulation logic and draw calls. The 5950X's high thread count ensures that background tasks and the game's simulation threads have plenty of resources. Its nearest rivals in our benchmark scores include the Intel Core i5-14600K, which scores 49166 (a delta of -0.2%), and the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49367 (delta -0.6%). This places the 5950X in a tight performance band, essentially trading blows with these newer chips despite being from an older generation.

In practice, the CPU's role in the measured FPS is evident when examining the scaling between settings. At 1920x1080, where the GPU is less likely to be the sole bottleneck, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is significant (126.8 FPS vs 71.8 FPS). This spread suggests the CPU is feeding the GPU well enough to allow for high frame rates at lower settings, but the game's simulation load at higher settings also taxes the processor. The 5950X's robust single-thread performance, as shown by its Geekbench single-core score of 2211, is a key factor in maintaining playable frame rates even when the game's logic is stressed. The processor's 64 MB of L3 cache also helps in keeping frequently accessed data close at hand, which is beneficial for the large, streaming world of the simulator.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is a RDNA 2.0 architecture GPU with the Navi 22 chip, built on a 7 nm process. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's game clock is 2495 MHz, with a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and it has a TDP of 250 W. It scores in the 79th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35327. The data shows it performs on par with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which has a delta of -1.3%, and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (delta 0.2%).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is responsible for rendering the terrain, aircraft models, and lighting. The 12 GB VRAM is a significant asset here, as the game can consume large amounts of memory at higher resolutions and detail levels. The measured FPS data shows a clear trend: as resolution and settings increase, frame rates drop, indicating that the GPU is a primary performance limiter in this game. For instance, at 2560x1440, the average FPS drops from 101.2 at Low to 58.8 at Ultra. This is a 42.4 FPS difference, highlighting how heavily the GPU is tasked by the simulator's graphical demands.

The RX 6750 XT's performance is strong enough for 1080p and 1440p gaming but struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K. At 3840x2160, the card only manages an average of 44.9 FPS at High settings and 42.2 FPS at Ultra. This aligns with its percentile ranking, indicating it is a mid-high tier card, not a top-tier 4K powerhouse. The GPU's FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s are adequate for the game's visual complexity, but the data suggests that for a consistently smooth experience, users should consider the resolution and settings trade-offs detailed in the sections below.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows excellent performance at both. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average FPS is 74, and at 2560x1440 with High settings, it is 61.1. Both are playable, but 1080p offers a higher frame rate headroom.

Q: What is the maximum playable setting at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest playable setting appears to be Medium, which yields an average of 54.7 FPS. High drops to 44.9 FPS, and Ultra to 42.2 FPS, which may be below the smoothness threshold for many users.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the Intel Core i5-14600K?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X has an average benchmark score of 49062, while the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 49166. This puts the 5950X at a 0.2% deficit, making them statistically equivalent in performance.

Q: How does the GPU compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080?

A: The Radeon RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 35327, while the RTX 3080 scores 35787. This places the RX 6750 XT 1.3% behind the RTX 3080, indicating very similar overall performance.

Q: What is the best resolution for achieving over 100 FPS?

A: To achieve an average FPS above 100, you must use 1920x1080 with Low settings, which results in 126.8 FPS. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average drops to 101.2 FPS, still exceeding 100 FPS.

Q: Does the 12 GB VRAM on the GPU cause any issues at 4K?

A: No direct issues are reported in the data, but the performance at 3840x2160 is significantly lower than at lower resolutions. The 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game, as the bottleneck appears to be the GPU's processing power rather than memory capacity.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination is ranked 852 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top half of all systems we have benchmarked for this game, specifically around the 47th percentile. This ranking reflects a balanced system that is neither entry-level nor top-tier. The rank is influenced by the GPU's mid-high tier status, as the CPU is a high-end part that can keep up with more powerful graphics cards.

The combo's position suggests that while it is a strong performer, there is significant headroom for improvement by pairing the 5950X with a more powerful GPU. Conversely, the RX 6750 XT is not being fully utilized by a slower CPU, as the 5950X's benchmark scores are well above the average. In the context of our database, this combo is a sensible pairing for high-refresh-rate 1080p or solid 1440p gaming, but it is not optimized for 4K Ultra settings. The data indicates that the system sits in a sweet spot for mainstream gamers who prioritize high frame rates at 1440p, as seen in the measured FPS for that resolution (101.2 FPS at Low, 78.8 FPS at Medium).

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

For a smooth and visually pleasing experience, the data points to a clear recommendation. At 1920x1080, the High preset provides an average of 74 FPS, which is generally considered smooth for a flight simulator. The Ultra preset at this resolution drops to 71.8 FPS, a minor difference, but High offers a slightly better frame rate with presumably similar visual quality. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset offers the best balance, with an average of 78.8 FPS. This is a significant jump from High, which drops to 61.1 FPS, and it ensures a more consistent frame rate for the more demanding resolution.

If the user prioritizes maximum visual fidelity and has a 1440p monitor, Ultra at 58.8 FPS is still playable, but the 20 FPS drop from Medium is substantial. At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The Medium preset at 3840x2160 yields 54.7 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a standard 60 FPS target. High and Ultra at 4K drop to 44.9 and 42.2 FPS respectively, which may result in noticeable stutters during complex scenes. Therefore, for the best overall experience across all resolutions, the Medium preset at 2560x1440 offers the highest average FPS (78.8) while maintaining a reasonable level of detail, making it the recommended starting point.

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

The measured data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings.

1920x1080 (Full HD):

• Low: 126.8 FPS
• Medium: 97.6 FPS
• High: 74.0 FPS
• Ultra: 71.8 FPS

At 1080p, the system is clearly GPU-bound at lower settings, with a massive 55 FPS gap between Low and Medium. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal at only 2.2 FPS, suggesting the simulation's CPU load is the limiting factor at these higher presets.

2560x1440 (Quad HD):

• Low: 101.2 FPS
• Medium: 78.8 FPS
• High: 61.1 FPS
• Ultra: 58.8 FPS

At 1440p, the scaling is more linear, with a consistent drop of roughly 20 FPS between Low, Medium, and High. The Ultra preset only costs an additional 2.3 FPS over High, indicating that the extra graphical features are not heavily taxing the GPU. This resolution is the sweet spot for this combo, balancing frame rate and visual quality.

3840x2160 (4K Ultra HD):

• Low: 72.6 FPS
• Medium: 54.7 FPS
• High: 44.9 FPS
• Ultra: 42.2 FPS

At 4K, the GPU's limits are exposed. Even at Low settings, the average FPS drops to 72.6, and the jump to Medium costs 17.9 FPS. High and Ultra presets are nearly identical, with a difference of only 2.7 FPS, confirming that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo is only viable with significant settings compromises.