Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a desktop combination facing Microsoft Flight Simulator’s demanding rendering and simulation workloads. The CPU is a 16-core, 32-thread Zen 3 part from the 5000 series, while the GPU carries 16 GB of GDDR6X and an Ada Lovelace core design. Both units were measured by this database, not estimated, and the pair produced the frame rates listed below. The data set includes 12 measured combinations of resolution and quality preset, along with a global combo rank of 448 out of 3,714 tested configurations.

FAQ

Q: What are the primary specifications of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X?

A: The 5950X has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. It is built on the 7 nm process with TSMC as the foundry and uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer.

Q: How much memory does the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER have, and what is the bus width?

A: The GPU contains 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s. The memory clock is 1313 MHz, which transfers at 21 Gbps effective.

Q: What is the best average FPS the combo achieved across all measured settings?

A: The highest average is 184 FPS, reached at 1920×1080 with the Low preset. The next best is 157 FPS at 2560×1440 Low, and 116 FPS at 3840×2160 Low.

Q: Does the CPU have any integrated graphics?

A: No, the Ryzen 9 5950X has no integrated graphics engine; the field is "null" in the data, meaning a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: Which preset at 4K produces a minimum FPS above 75?

A: The Medium preset at 3840×2160 has a minimum FPS of 77, with an average of 90 and a maximum of 104. No other 4K preset in the measured rows reaches a minimum above 75.

Q: How does the combo rank compare to the total pool?

A: The combo ranked 448th out of 3,714 tested combos. That places it in the upper segment of the overall list, within the top 448 combinations.

CPU Role

The 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor released in the 5000 series. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 4.90 GHz are steady figures for a flagship desktop. The Zen 3 core architecture and a 7 nm process node put high per-core efficiency into a chip that still supports 32 threads for heavily threaded tasks. The L1 cache is 64 KB per core, the L2 is 512 KB per core, and the L3 is 64 MB, which is ample for simulation data.

The CPU logged a multi-thread score of 26,017 in Cinebench R23 and a single-thread score of 1,614 in the same suite. Geekbench produced 15,233 multi-core and 2,083 single-core. The 3DMark tests show a climbing thread efficiency: 1,856 in the 2-thread test, 3,595 in the 4-thread test, 6,598 in the 8-thread test, and 10,810 at 16 threads. The maximum-thread score reaches 11,597, indicating the 16 cores scale well up to full occupancy. In that past, the chip holds its own, with a benchmark percentile of 91 among all CPUs on record.

Relative to nearby rivals in the benchmark pool, the 5950X tracks almost evenly wanderagainst the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, which is 0.2% lower (delta -0.2), and the AMD EPYC 8124P (the same -0.3%). The Intel Core i9-13900F is 0.4% lower and the Intel Core i7-14700 is 0.7% lower, meaning the 5950X sits within a narrow performance band. Against these, the differences of a point or a tenth of a point are within run-to-run variation, so the 5950X does not lead the group but is not roundly beaten.

In this game, the large number of full threads (32) matters for Flight Simulator’s background and worker threads, keeping the relatively low average frame rates possible for a 16-core part. For the measured frame rates, the CPU’s role is especially visible at 4K, where the GPU is more the bottleneck, but the high single-core efficiency (Cinebench R23 single 1,614) still helps the simulator’s main simulation loop. The 16-core count and a 64 MB L3 provide headroom for the display of scenery and complex rendering calls. Early in the frame, the boost clock of 4.90 GHz also affects latency-sensitive tasks.

The CPU has a launch MSRP of $799, and the data show it maintains a 91st percentile ranking for CPU success.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is built on the "Ada Lovelace" architecture and uses the AD103 die. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6X across a 256-bit bus; bandwidth is 672.3 GB/s, an ample path for Flight Simulator’s high-resolution textures and world-loading. Base clock is 2340 MHz with a boost up to 2610 MHz. The 5 nm node from TSMC holds 45,900 million transistors inside a 379 mm² die (packed at 121.1M per mm²). The memory clock is 1313 MHz, giving 21 Gbps effective speed.

The GPU is 8448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, making it capable of wide output. It also has 66 ray tracing cores and 264 tensor cores, though the measured rows do parse off ray tracing effects. The performance blend: 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same for FP16 (1:1). The pixel rate is 250.6 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 689.0 GTexel/s. Its TDP is 285 W, and it uses a 16-pin power connector with a 600 W suggested PSU.

The passmark G3D score is 31,811 and GPU Compute 18,372. Under 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it totes 5,569, Geekbench OpenCL 199,267, and Vulkan 53,683. The percentile against all GPUs is 76, which places the GPU in the upper quarter but still behind higher-end cards. The nearby rivals in the average-Benchmark pool have nearly identical scores: the Quadro M5000 delta -0.4%, the M60-1Q at -0.4%, the RTX PRO 4500 at -1.4%, and the TITAN RTX at -1.9%. Thus the 4070 Ti SUPER is an upper-midrange performer in this list, though the raw 4K VRAM size (16 GB) is a clear enabler for the game’s high textures.

The measured FPS will show a large GPU reliance at 4K. When the resolution drop from 1080 to 2160, the frame rate is cut down. From the remaining section, we see that at 1080p Low the average is 192, whereas at 2160p Low it is 68 FPS in the High preset. That smaller difference at the same settings is a direct result of the bus speed and amount of memory. The 16 GB and 256-bit bus are fixed against the 285 W power envelope, permitting many geometry tasks. The duo has a launch MSRP of 799 USD.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,714 tested hardware combinations, this CPU+GPU pair ranks at #448. It is not the top, but it is solidly in the high tier. The number of frames is not taken from that rank – the rank is a separate index that uses the average of the game results. The fact that it is in the 448th spot means that around 12% of the known testing pool beat it (since 448 is a tiny fraction of 3,714). The exact 1/8th percentile, but we only have the rank.

The CPU’s 91st percentile among CPUs and GPU’s 76th percentile are both high, but the combination ranks lower than the CPU alone because the GPU is relatively lower. The combo's rank of 448 above a large number of test pairs provided by this site, indicating a more balanced load of CPU and GPU in Flight Simulator. The CPU carries the simulation and some physics, while the GPU carries the rendering; the rating reflects that synergy.

The rank can be taken as guidance: many builds that tested better use more powerful or newer GPUs, but the 5950X also remains a capable partner. For someone with this collection of parts, the rank suggests they will push high frame lateness on medium to high settings. For these 12 measured points, the data confirms the rank is reachable and enviable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920×1080, the Low preset averages 184 FPS. Med at medium averages 151 FPS (with a min of 129 and max of 174). High averages 114 FPS, and Ultra content averages 108 FPS. The scaling from Low to every setting drops drastically at the highest expensiveness. At 1080p, even Ultra shows 108 FPS, which is already above a 60 Hz target.

At 2560×1440, averages are: Low 157, Medium 122 (min 104, max 140), High 92, Ultra 87. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at fixed settings reduces by 108–104? No, we'll just list the numbers: at Low, 184 to 157 difference 27; at Medium, 151 to 122; at High, 114 to 92; at Ultra, 108 to 87. Those numbers are derived, but the underlying values themselves appear.

At 3840×2160, averages are: Low 116, Medium 90 (min 77, max 104), High 68, Ultra 64. The Ultra at 4K is not near 60 a heavily demanding preset. The lowest number across the whole dataset is 64 FPS at 4K Ultra, which still clears 60, although the minimum for the High preset is not recorded for Ultra. The only out-of-range frame is 4K Medium min 77, showing the combo does not fall below 60 consistently.

Check the small tolerances: for 1080p Medium, the min 129 to max 174 gives a range of 45 FPS. At 1440p Medium, min 104 to max 140 is a 36 FPS range. At 4K Medium, min 77 to max 104 a a 27 FPS range. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the frame times are relatively tighter. The difference between the average and the max, however, remains relatively stable.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows give a clear data‑driven answer for selecting a preset. At 1080p, every preset yields an average of at least 108 FPS (Ultra) or higher (Low 184, Medium 151, High 114). Thus the best all-around for 1080p is the Ultra preset, viewing the high fidelity without dropping below that mad 60 FPS target. The High preset is only 108, but if you want to moderate the GPU load slightly, High at 114 is a solid alternative. At 1080p least‑framerate intensive, 24 FPS is the top.

At 1440p, the Medium preset averages 122 FPS and has a min of 104, which is a comfortable fit for a 144 Hz monitor. The High preset (92 FPS) is also playable on 60–90 Hz display, but it does not saturate a 144 Hz panel. Ultra at 87 FPS is equally close. The data shows the Medium is the fastest setting that keeps a margin so the min stays north of 100. High and Ultra both deliver above 85 FPS, but sojave the min may dip lower (though min is not logged for these rows). For a constant, the Medium preset is the recommendation for 1440p because it keeps the average highest and the single minimum value (104) still in the oversized range.

At 4K the situation is tighter. The average for the Medium preset is 104 FPS with a min of 77 – the only 4K row with a recorded min. The Ultra averaged 64 FPS, which is not punishing but offers a smaller margin for GPS rendering (for vsync etc.). The High preset yields 68 FPS average. Since the min at High is not given, we can infer from the nearby Medium and the other presets: the High is on average between Medium and Ultra. The trade‑off of using Medium at 4K is that the image quality is lower, but it brings a stronger 77 FPS minimum. For a consistent 60+ with a fixture, the Medium preset is the best balance; the Ultra has 24 fewer FPS average but no recorded min, so in a less stable scene it could dip.

Thus the literal best experience per the measured rows: at 1080p, use Ultra; at 1440p, use Medium; at 4K, use Medium for the highest advertised min and average that keeps times ready.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals where the bottleneck lies. Taking the same preset, comparing Low: 184 (1080p) → 157 (1440p) → 116 (2160p). The 1080p number to 4K number is a loss of 68 FPS for that setting. That 68 value appears in the pack as the 4K High average. For the Medium preset, 135p goes from 151 to 122 to 90, a drop of 61 FPS from 1080 to 4K. For High: 114 to 92 to 68. For Ultra: 108 to 87 to 64.

The ratio shows that the 4K resolution doubles the pixel count (considered core) but the GPU-DR part is the main actor. The frame drop of approximately one-third from 1080p to 4K for each preset occurs because the GPU's rendering rate is bound by pixel fill and texture sampling rather than by CPU. At 1080p Low, the FPS 184 suggests the CPU stage is sitting for the GPU to take more work. When we move to the same settings on 4K, the average lowers to 116, which is still far from the CPU’s range but the GPU becomes the limiting part. The absence of min-lmax at 1080 and 4K for Low does not let us compute variance, but from the Medium data, the 4K min (77) is well above 60.

The bigger takeaway is the Ultra presets: from 108p to 4K the average drops from 108 to 64 (a diff of 44). That indicates that the GPU load is steep, yet the CPU is still able to drive the simulation without stalling. The CPU has high multi‑thread (Cinebench R23 23,017) and has every supporting ray. So the scaling from 1080p to 4K (across all settings) is smooth and monotonic, with no plateaus. The result is that at lower resolution the meeting CPU supplies the data quickly; at 4K the GPU shading becomes the primary difficulty, but the bets on the Peebags hold.

Because the CPU’s priority is 91st percentile, the 5950X is strong enough that at 1440p and below the measurement is not the limit. The video card’s 76th percentile places it with that as the main factor when increasing the frame buffering. The typical slope – starting at 184 FPS and going to 108 slider – indicates a GPU bound curve eventually.