Microsoft Flight Simulator

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD Radeon RX 580 is a pairing that immediately signals a mismatch in raw capability, and the measured data for Microsoft Flight Simulator reflects that tension clearly. The processor is a high-end 12-core Zen 4 part, while the graphics card is a 2017-era Polaris design with 8 GB of GDDR5. Across the three resolutions tested, the RX 580 becomes the dominant constraint, though the Ryzen 9 7900X’s strong single-thread performance still shapes how the game behaves at lower settings. Benchmark results indicate that this combo ranks near the bottom of the database, at position 3376 out of 3714 tested combinations, which places it in the lower tenth percentile of all systems. The sections below break down how each component contributes, how resolution changes the balance, and what settings offer the most playable experience.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael) using a 5 nm process from TSMC. Its base clock is 4.70 GHz, with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, and it carries 64 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 per core. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the high boost clock is more relevant than the core count. The CPU’s single-thread benchmark scores support this: it reaches 1093 in 3DMark single-thread, 323 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 2016.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, and 2617 in Geekbench single-core. These are the scores that matter for the game’s main thread, which handles flight physics, weather, and scenery loading.

The multi-threaded performance is equally strong, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29300 and a Geekbench multicore score of 19267, but Microsoft Flight Simulator does not scale linearly across 24 threads. The data shows that the CPU sits at the 91st percentile among all CPUs by average benchmark score, meaning it outperforms most processors in the database. Its nearest rivals in average score include the AMD EPYC 7313P (0.2% ahead), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (0.3% behind), Intel Xeon 634 (0.6% ahead), and Intel Core i7-14700F (0.6% behind). This places the 7900X in a tight cluster of high-performance parts, none of which would bottleneck a modern GPU in this title.

However, with the RX 580 paired alongside it, the CPU’s role is mostly to feed frames that the GPU can handle. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 54 FPS average, which is the highest measured result in this dataset. That is still far below what the CPU alone could drive if paired with a stronger graphics card. The 7900X’s 12 cores and 24 threads also handle background tasks and scenery streaming without issue, but the frame rate ceiling is set by the GPU, not the processor. The L3 cache of 64 MB and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth) are ample for the game’s data demands, yet they do not compensate for the RX 580’s limitations.

In short, the CPU is not the limiting factor in any measured configuration. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is clearly overwhelmed, the average FPS is 18, which is far below what the 7900X could achieve with a balanced GPU. The processor’s 170 W TDP and active production status indicate it is a modern, high-end part, but its contribution to this specific combo is constrained by the graphics card’s age and capability.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is built on the Polaris 20 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base clock is 1257 MHz with a boost clock of 1340 MHz, and the memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 8 GB of GDDR5 VRAM is the most relevant specification for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams large textures and terrain data. At 4K Ultra, the game requires more than 8 GB of VRAM in many scenes, and the RX 580’s capacity and bandwidth both become bottlenecks.

The GPU’s benchmark scores place it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12928. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (0.1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon 740M (0.5% behind), and AMD FirePro W5100 (0.6% behind). This puts the RX 580 in the mid-range of the database, but in a 2020 flight simulator with high fidelity, it is clearly insufficient for smooth gameplay above 1080p Low. The pixel rate is 42.88 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 193.0 GTexel/s, which are modest figures for this title’s dense geometry and texture-heavy environments.

The GPU’s FP32 performance is 6.175 TFLOPS, which is low by modern standards but not negligible for older games. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS numbers tell the story: at 1080p Low, the combo averages 54 FPS; at High, it drops to 31; at Ultra, it sits at 30. These are playable at Low, but the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 256-bit bus are not enough to sustain higher settings without significant frame rate loss. The RX 580 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so API compatibility is not an issue, but the raw compute and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors.

The GPU’s TDP is 185 W, which is modest for a card of this era, and its suggested PSU is 450 W. It is an end-of-life product, having been released on 2017-04-17, with a launch MSRP of 229 USD. In this combo, the GPU is the clear bottleneck at every resolution and settings level, as evidenced by the fact that moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings reduces FPS by roughly 40-50%, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU’s high single-thread scores do not help because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize them.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a consistent pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 54 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low reduces that to 43 FPS, and at 4K Low, it drops to 32 FPS. That is a 40.7% decrease from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, which is a larger drop than expected if the CPU were the bottleneck. The CPU’s performance is resolution-independent, so if the processor were limiting, the FPS would remain similar across resolutions. Instead, the FPS scales inversely with pixel count, confirming that the RX 580’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the constraints.

At Medium settings, the same trend is visible: 1080p Medium averages 42 FPS, 1440p Medium averages 34 FPS, and 4K Medium averages 25 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 40.5%. At High settings, 1080p High averages 31 FPS, 1440p High averages 25 FPS, and 4K High averages 19 FPS, a 38.7% reduction. At Ultra, 1080p Ultra averages 30 FPS, 1440p Ultra averages 24 FPS, and 4K Ultra averages 18 FPS, a 40% drop. These percentages are remarkably consistent, hovering around 40% when going from 1080p to 4K, which is typical of a GPU that is fully saturated at all resolutions.

The fact that the FPS does not plateau at lower resolutions, even at 1080p Low where the CPU could theoretically drive more frames, indicates that the RX 580 is the limiting component at every setting. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 10972 and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29300 are far above what this game needs at 1080p, but the GPU’s 6.175 TFLOPS and 256 GB/s bandwidth cannot keep up. The data also shows that the difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is significant: at 1080p, Low is 54 FPS while Ultra is 30 FPS, a 44% reduction. This further emphasizes that the GPU is the bottleneck, as raising settings increases the rendering load per pixel, which the RX 580 cannot absorb.

In summary, the resolution scaling analysis points to a single conclusion: the Ryzen 9 7900X is underutilized, and the RX 580 is the sole determinant of frame rate. The consistent ~40% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings is a hallmark of GPU-bound performance, and it suggests that users should focus on lowering resolution or settings to improve playability, rather than expecting the CPU to compensate.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 3376 out of 3714 combos. That places it in the bottom 9% of all systems, which is a poor showing for a CPU that ranks in the 91st percentile for processors. The disparity between the CPU’s high percentile (91) and the combo’s low rank (3376) is a direct reflection of the GPU’s limitations. The RX 580’s 53rd percentile among GPUs, combined with the game’s demanding nature, drags the overall combo down to near the bottom.

The nearest rivals for the CPU (AMD EPYC 7313P, Intel Xeon Phi 7290, Intel Xeon 634, Intel Core i7-14700F) all have similar average CPU scores, but none of them are paired with such an old GPU in this dataset. The combo rank is not about the CPU’s absolute strength but about how the two parts work together in this specific game. Since the RX 580 is the bottleneck, the combo’s rank is essentially determined by the GPU’s performance, which is why it sits so low.

For context, the combo rank of 3376 out of 3714 means there are only 338 combos that perform worse. This is a critical data point for anyone considering this pairing: the Ryzen 9 7900X is wasted with the RX 580 in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU’s 12 cores and 24 threads, along with its high boost clock, would be better paired with a GPU that can deliver higher frame rates. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the combo only reaches 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider smooth. The combo’s low rank is not a reflection of the CPU’s capability but of the GPU’s inability to keep pace with the simulator’s demands.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X the bottleneck in this combo?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with strong single-thread scores (e.g., 2016.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core). The measured FPS scales consistently with resolution, dropping ~40% from 1080p to 4K at all settings, which is a GPU-bound pattern.

Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 54, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. All other settings and resolutions produce lower averages, with 4K Ultra being the lowest at 18 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 580’s 8 GB VRAM affect performance at 4K?

A: The 8 GB GDDR5 VRAM is insufficient for 4K Ultra, where the average FPS drops to 18. Even at 4K Low, the average is only 32 FPS, indicating that memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) and capacity both limit performance.

Q: What CPU rival has a similar average benchmark score to the 7900X?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313P has an average score of 53206, which is 0.2% higher than the 7900X’s average benchmark score of 53288. The Intel Core i7-14700F is 0.6% higher, and the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 is 0.3% lower.

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 4K?

A: The data shows that 1080p Low is the only playable configuration, with 54 FPS. At 4K, even Low settings only reach 32 FPS, so 1080p is the only practical resolution for this game.

Q: What GPU rival is closest in performance to the RX 580?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has an average score of 12940, which is 0.1% higher than the RX 580’s average of 12928. The GTX 1660 SUPER is 0.4% higher.

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

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this combo is as follows:

• 3840x2160 (4K):
• Low: 32 FPS average (no min/max provided)
• Medium: 25 FPS average, with a minimum of 21 and maximum of 29
• High: 19 FPS average (no min/max provided)
• Ultra: 18 FPS average (no min/max provided)

• 2560x1440 (1440p):
• Low: 43 FPS average (no min/max provided)
• Medium: 34 FPS average, with a minimum of 29 and maximum of 39
• High: 25 FPS average (no min/max provided)
• Ultra: 24 FPS average (no min/max provided)

• 1920x1080 (1080p):
• Low: 54 FPS average (no min/max provided)
• Medium: 42 FPS average, with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 48
• High: 31 FPS average (no min/max provided)
• Ultra: 30 FPS average (no min/max provided)

The only configurations with min/max data are the Medium settings at each resolution, which show the frame time variability. At 1080p Medium, the range is 36 to 48 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, it is 29 to 39 FPS, a 10 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, it is 21 to 29 FPS, an 8 FPS spread. This indicates that the frame pacing is relatively stable within each resolution, but the overall averages are low. The lack of min/max data for other settings suggests that the average FPS is the primary metric, and it consistently shows that 1080p Low is the only setting that approaches acceptable playability. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p is from 54 to 30 FPS, a 44% reduction, which highlights the GPU’s sensitivity to graphical settings.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only preset that delivers a smooth experience is 1080p Low, which averages 54 FPS. This is the only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS, and it is the recommended choice for users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 42 FPS, which is still playable but may show stutter in busy areas, especially given the minimum of 36 FPS. At 1080p High and Ultra, the averages are 31 and 30 FPS respectively, which are below the 60 FPS target and may feel sluggish in a simulator that requires precise control.

If the user is willing to accept lower frame rates for better visuals, 1080p Medium offers a reasonable compromise, with a 42 FPS average and a 36 FPS minimum. However, the data does not show any advantage to playing at 1440p or 4K, as the FPS drops to 43 or lower even at Low settings. At 1440p Low, the average is 43 FPS, which is marginally lower than 1080p Medium, and at 4K Low, it is 32 FPS, which is below the playable threshold for most users. Therefore, the recommendation is to stay at 1080p and use Low settings for the best frame rate, or Medium settings if the user can tolerate the reduced smoothness.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as the highest average it achieves is 30 FPS at 1080p, and it drops to 18 FPS at 4K. The High preset is also not recommended, as it only reaches 31 FPS at 1080p and 19 FPS at 4K. The data clearly shows that the RX 580 is not capable of handling this game’s higher presets without significant frame rate loss. Users with this combo should also consider that the CPU is not the limiting factor, so lowering settings will not improve CPU utilization but will directly improve frame rates as the GPU load decreases. In summary, the best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low, with 1080p Medium as a secondary option for those who prefer better visuals and can accept a lower average FPS.