Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 146th out of 3,714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 4% of all tested systems.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 5950X compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X scores an average of 51,947 across all benchmark tests. Its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, scores 52,073, making the AMD chip 0.2% slower. The Intel Core i9-13900F scores 51,730, which is 0.4% slower than the 5950X.

Q: What is the RTX 4090's standing among all GPUs?

A: The RTX 4090 holds an 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60,347. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro A60, scores 60,326, a negligible 0% difference.

Q: What is the best average FPS achieved by this combo at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 184 FPS average. This drops to 168 FPS at Medium, 136 FPS at High, and 130 FPS at Ultra.

Q: Does the RTX 4090 have more VRAM than needed for this game?

A: The RTX 4090 comes with 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s bandwidth. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, even at 4K Ultra settings, the combo maintains 77 FPS, indicating the memory subsystem is not a limiting factor at any tested setting.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance compare to its multi-thread performance?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X scores 1,614 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 26,017 in multi-core, a ratio of roughly 1:16. This strong single-thread result is relevant since flight simulators often rely heavily on single-thread performance.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 609 mm² containing 76,300 million transistors. Its base clock runs at 2235 MHz with a boost clock of 2520 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, providing 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. With 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, the GPU delivers 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is substantial at higher resolutions. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 61 FPS — from 138 FPS down to 77 FPS. This 44% performance drop from Low to Ultra at 4K demonstrates that the GPU is heavily utilized at this resolution. The RTX 4090's 24 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for this game, as even at 4K Ultra the combo maintains playable frame rates.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 88 among all GPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 60,347, places it near the top of the performance spectrum. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro A60, scores nearly identically at 60,326 (0% difference), while the AMD Radeon PRO V710 trails by 2.9%. This suggests the RTX 4090 is operating at the upper edge of GPU performance, though not the absolute highest.

At 1080p, the GPU's role diminishes relative to the CPU. The spread between Low (184 FPS) and Ultra (130 FPS) is 54 FPS, a smaller absolute gap than at 4K. This pattern indicates that at lower resolutions, other system components begin to influence performance more significantly.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture (codename Vermeer), manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It runs at a base clock of 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 with dual-channel configuration, providing 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 91 among all CPUs reflects strong overall performance. Its average benchmark score of 51,947 places it in close competition with several Intel offerings: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 52,073 (0.2% faster), the AMD EPYC 8124P scores 52,121 (0.3% faster), and the Intel Core i7-14700 scores 52,301 (0.7% faster). The Intel Core i9-13900F scores 51,730, making the 5950X 0.4% faster.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's single-thread performance is particularly relevant. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,614 and the 3DMark single-thread score of 944 indicate the processor can handle the simulation's physics and AI computations efficiently. The multi-thread capabilities are also strong, with Cinebench R23 multi-core scoring 26,017 and PassMark multi-thread scoring 45,424.

The 5950X's role becomes more apparent at 1080p where the GPU is less stressed. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low (184 FPS) and Ultra (130 FPS) is 54 FPS, while at 4K this same setting spread is 61 FPS. The fact that frame rates at 1080p Low (184 FPS) are only 33% higher than at 4K Low (138 FPS) suggests the CPU is providing a baseline of performance that the GPU builds upon at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 combination ranks 146th out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 3.9% of all tested system configurations, indicating a very high-performing setup for this particular game.

This ranking is notable given the individual component rankings: the CPU sits at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs. The combination's 146th position out of 3,714 suggests that the pairing is well-balanced for this game, with neither component dramatically bottlenecking the other.

The measured FPS data supports this balanced assessment. At 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 130 FPS; at 1440p Ultra, it achieves 105 FPS; and at 4K Ultra, it achieves 77 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings shows a 41% performance drop, which is less severe than the resolution increase (a 4x pixel count increase from 1080p to 4K). This indicates that the system is not purely GPU-bound at 4K Ultra — the CPU is contributing meaningfully to maintaining frame rates.

Compared to the 3,568 combos ranked lower, this system offers substantial performance headroom. The 146th rank means there are only 145 tested configurations that perform better in this specific game, a very exclusive group. For a flight simulator that is known to stress both CPU and GPU heavily, this combo demonstrates excellent overall balance.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

At 1920x1080, all settings presets deliver playable frame rates. Low settings produce 184 FPS, Medium 168 FPS, High 136 FPS, and Ultra 130 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 16 FPS (8.7% reduction) but likely offers visual improvements. From Medium to High, the drop is 32 FPS (19% reduction), while High to Ultra costs only 6 FPS (4.4% reduction). Given that Ultra is only 6 FPS slower than High at 1080p, Ultra is the recommended preset for users with 1080p displays.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low yields 171 FPS, Medium 146 FPS, High 110 FPS, and Ultra 105 FPS. The Medium to High transition represents a 36 FPS drop (24.7% reduction), which is substantial. High to Ultra costs only 5 FPS (4.5% reduction). For 1440p users, High settings provide a good balance at 110 FPS, with Ultra offering nearly identical performance of 105 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the choices become more constrained. Low produces 138 FPS, Medium 108 FPS, High 81 FPS, and Ultra 77 FPS. The Medium to High transition costs 27 FPS (25% reduction), making Medium the recommended preset for 4K if frame rate is prioritized. However, High at 81 FPS remains playable for most users, and Ultra at 77 FPS is only 4 FPS slower than High. For 4K users seeking the best visual quality, High is recommended; for those prioritizing smoothness, Medium offers 108 FPS.

The measured data includes min and max FPS for Medium settings at each resolution: at 1080p Medium, the range is 143-193 FPS; at 1440p Medium, 124-168 FPS; at 4K Medium, 92-124 FPS. These ranges indicate consistent frame pacing without severe drops.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers the following average frame rates:

• Low: 184 FPS
• Medium: 168 FPS (min 143, max 193)
• High: 136 FPS
• Ultra: 130 FPS

The spread from Low to Ultra is 54 FPS. Medium provides 91.3% of Low's performance, High provides 73.9%, and Ultra provides 70.7%. The step from Medium to High is the largest single-settings drop at 32 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• Low: 171 FPS
• Medium: 146 FPS (min 124, max 168)
• High: 110 FPS
• Ultra: 105 FPS

The spread from Low to Ultra is 66 FPS. Medium retains 85.4% of Low's performance, High retains 64.3%, and Ultra retains 61.4%. The Medium to High step costs 36 FPS, the largest drop in any resolution/settings combination.

At 3840x2160, the results are:

• Low: 138 FPS
• Medium: 108 FPS (min 92, max 124)
• High: 81 FPS
• Ultra: 77 FPS

The spread from Low to Ultra is 61 FPS. Medium retains 78.3% of Low's performance, High retains 58.7%, and Ultra retains 55.8%. At 4K, the Medium to High step costs 27 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 4 FPS.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings: Low settings scale from 184 FPS at 1080p to 171 FPS at 1440p (7% drop) to 138 FPS at 4K (25% drop from 1080p). Medium settings scale from 168 FPS at 1080p to 146 FPS at 1440p (13.1% drop) to 108 FPS at 4K (35.7% drop). High settings scale from 136 FPS at 1080p to 110 FPS at 1440p (19.1% drop) to 81 FPS at 4K (40.4% drop). Ultra settings scale from 130 FPS at 1080p to 105 FPS at 1440p (19.2% drop) to 77 FPS at 4K (40.8% drop).

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important information about system bottlenecks. At Low settings, the drop from 1080p (184 FPS) to 4K (138 FPS) is 46 FPS, a 25% reduction. At Ultra settings, the drop from 1080p (130 FPS) to 4K (77 FPS) is 53 FPS, a 40.8% reduction.

The fact that Low settings show a smaller percentage drop than Ultra settings indicates that at Low settings, the system is more CPU-limited. At 1080p Low, the GPU is capable of rendering frames much faster than the CPU can feed it, so the 184 FPS ceiling is likely constrained by CPU performance. When resolution increases to 4K Low, the GPU has more work per frame, allowing it to better utilize its capacity, resulting in 138 FPS — still very high.

At Ultra settings, the GPU becomes more of a limiting factor. The 40.8% drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is closer to what would be expected if the GPU were the primary constraint, though not fully GPU-bound since a purely GPU-limited scenario would show a larger drop given the 4x pixel count increase.

The intermediate resolutions confirm this interpretation. At Medium settings, the 1080p to 1440p drop is 13.1%, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 26.0%. This increasing rate of decline as resolution rises suggests the GPU becomes progressively more dominant. At High settings, the 1080p to 1440p drop is 19.1%, and the 1440p to 4K drop is 26.4%.

Notably, the 4K Ultra result of 77 FPS is only 40.8% below the 1080p Ultra result of 130 FPS, despite rendering four times the pixels. This indicates that even at 4K Ultra, the system is not purely GPU-limited — the CPU continues to contribute meaningfully to overall frame rate. If the GPU were the sole bottleneck, the 4K Ultra frame rate would be approximately 25% of the 1080p Ultra frame rate, or roughly 32-33 FPS, rather than the measured 77 FPS.

This scaling behavior suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's workload is distributed across both CPU and GPU even at high resolutions. The Ryzen 9 5950X with its strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,614) and the RTX 4090's massive compute resources (82.58 TFLOPS FP32) work in tandem to produce frame rates that exceed what either component could achieve alone in a purely bottlenecked scenario.