Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling pattern in Microsoft Flight Simulator reveals a system that remains capable at every tested setting, but the frame rate cost of moving from 1080p to 4K is substantial across the board. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 154.7 FPS at 1920x1080 to 127 FPS at 2560x1440, then further to 88 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 43% reduction from the 1080p baseline when jumping to 4K, which signals that even at the lowest graphical preset, the GPU is being pushed hard by the resolution increase.

The scaling pattern shifts at higher settings. At High, the 1080p result is 90.1 FPS, dropping to 70.9 FPS at 1440p and 55.8 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at High is roughly 38%, slightly less severe than at Low. At Ultra, the numbers tell a similar story: 87 FPS at 1080p, 68.2 FPS at 1440p, and 49.1 FPS at 4K. The fact that Ultra at 1080p (87 FPS) is only slightly below High at 1080p (90.1 FPS) suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity without disproportionately tanking performance at lower resolutions.

The limiting component becomes clearer when examining the spread between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the gap between Low (154.7 FPS) and Ultra (87 FPS) is 67.7 FPS, indicating the GPU is the primary bottleneck as settings increase. At 4K, the same gap narrows to 38.9 FPS (88 FPS Low vs 49.1 FPS Ultra). This narrowing at 4K is counterintuitive if the GPU were the sole constraint — instead, it suggests that at 4K, the CPU begins to play a more significant limiting role, preventing the Low preset from scaling as high as it does at 1080p. The 4K Low result of 88 FPS being exactly equal to the 1080p Ultra result (87 FPS) is a notable coincidence that underscores how resolution and settings trade off against each other.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X brings 12 cores and 24 threads to this flight simulator, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This is a Zen 4 architecture part on the AMD Socket AM5 platform, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The CPU's benchmark scores place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 50556. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, scores 50598, a delta of just -0.1%, meaning the 7900X effectively trades blows with that chip in synthetic workloads.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is evident in the 4K Low scenario. The fact that 4K Low achieves 88 FPS while 1080p Ultra achieves 87 FPS — nearly identical — indicates that at 4K, the CPU is not the limiting factor even at Low settings, because the GPU is still saturated by the pixel count. However, the 1080p Low result of 154.7 FPS versus the 1440p Low result of 127 FPS shows that the CPU can drive very high frame rates when the GPU is less burdened. The 7900X's single-thread performance, as measured by its 3DMark single-thread score of 1093 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6168, is strong enough to avoid becoming a bottleneck at 1080p Medium (121.1 FPS) and 1080p High (90.1 FPS).

The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities, reflected in a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 43695 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 51406, are likely leveraged by the flight simulator's simulation logic, which can spread across multiple cores. Yet the data does not show a scenario where the CPU caps performance below what the GPU can deliver — every resolution and settings combination shows frame rates that are plausible for the GPU's workload. The 7900X's 64 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth contribute to feeding the GPU efficiently, but the measured FPS data suggests the CPU is comfortably ahead of the GPU in this pairing.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the clear performance driver in this combination. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, the GPU has ample memory capacity and throughput for Microsoft Flight Simulator's large textures and streaming world data. The GPU's boost clock of 2520 MHz and game clock of 2070 MHz, based on a 1330 MHz base, reflect a high-frequency RDNA 4.0 design fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The 3584 shading units and 128 ROPs provide the raw compute and pixel throughput needed for this simulator's dense scenery rendering.

The GPU's benchmark profile places it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34780. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA A2, scores 34866, a delta of -0.2%, while the AMD Radeon HD 7970 trails by 0.7% (34541) — these close deltas indicate the RX 9070 sits in a tightly contested performance band. The PassMark G3D score of 25381 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 165532 confirm strong DirectX 12 and Vulkan performance, which matters for a DirectX 12 Ultimate title like Flight Simulator.

The GPU's VRAM capacity of 16 GB is not stressed to its limit at any tested setting, as evidenced by the fact that even Ultra at 4K (49.1 FPS) does not show a catastrophic frame rate collapse that would indicate memory swapping. The memory clock of 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective) sustains the 644.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is critical for streaming terrain data at 4K resolution. The measured FPS scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows the GPU responding predictably to increased graphical load, with the 4K Ultra result of 49.1 FPS being the lowest measured value — still playable, but indicating that the RX 9070 is working at its limit with maximum settings at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings balance depends on the target resolution and frame rate preference. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 90.1 FPS, which is smooth for a flight simulator, while Ultra achieves 87 FPS — a marginal 3.1 FPS difference that makes Ultra the better choice for visual quality at 1080p, since the performance penalty is negligible. Medium at 1080p (121.1 FPS) offers a significant frame rate headroom for users prioritizing smoothness, but the jump from Medium to High costs 31 FPS, which is a substantial trade-off.

At 2560x1440, the High preset (70.9 FPS) is the sweet spot, as it stays above the 60 FPS threshold while Ultra (68.2 FPS) is nearly identical — the 2.7 FPS difference is within the margin of typical variance, so either preset works. Medium at 1440p (99.5 FPS) is the best choice for high-refresh-rate monitors, as it provides a 28.6 FPS advantage over High while still maintaining detailed visuals. Low at 1440p (127 FPS) is unnecessarily fast for most flight simulator use cases.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. High (55.8 FPS) is the highest preset that stays above 55 FPS, while Ultra (49.1 FPS) dips below 50 FPS, which may feel less fluid for cockpit views and rapid camera pans. Medium at 4K (70.3 FPS) is the recommended preset for 4K displays, as it delivers a 14.5 FPS improvement over High while retaining enough detail for the simulator's terrain and aircraft models. Low at 4K (88 FPS) is viable but sacrifices too much visual fidelity for the frame rate gain.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 573rd out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 32% of all tested configurations. The percentile ranking of 573/1795 indicates that while this combo is not at the very top tier, it sits comfortably above the median, outperforming the majority of tested systems. The CPU's 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs is higher than the GPU's 79th percentile, suggesting that the CPU has more headroom relative to its peers than the GPU does.

The delta between the CPU's nearest rivals is minimal — within 0.8% of the Intel Core i9-13980HX — but the GPU's nearest rivals show a similar tight grouping, with the NVIDIA A2 just 0.2% ahead. This means that any ranking movement for this combo would likely come from the GPU side, as the CPU is already near the top of its class. The combo's 573rd rank out of 1795 is consistent with a mid-to-upper-tier pairing that is not limited by either component being an outlier in either direction.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are: Low 154.7, Medium 121.1, High 90.1, and Ultra 87. This progression shows a steep drop from Low to Medium (33.6 FPS), a further drop to High (31 FPS), and then a minimal drop to Ultra (3.1 FPS). The near-flat curve between High and Ultra at 1080p suggests that Ultra adds little performance cost beyond High.

At 2560x1440, the values are: Low 127, Medium 99.5, High 70.9, and Ultra 68.2. The drop from Medium to High (28.6 FPS) is the largest step at this resolution, while the High-to-Ultra step (2.7 FPS) is again minimal. Low to Medium costs 27.5 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the values are: Low 88, Medium 70.3, High 55.8, and Ultra 49.1. The largest drop is from Medium to High (14.5 FPS), followed by High to Ultra (6.7 FPS), and Low to Medium (17.7 FPS). The 4K results show a more even distribution across settings compared to lower resolutions, indicating that the GPU is becoming the consistent bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The 2560x1440 resolution with High settings (70.9 FPS) provides the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness, as it stays above 60 FPS while offering more detail than Medium.

Q: How much faster is Low compared to Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low (154.7 FPS) is 67.7 FPS faster than Ultra (87 FPS), representing a 77.8% improvement in frame rate.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, only Low (88 FPS) and Medium (70.3 FPS) exceed 60 FPS. High (55.8 FPS) and Ultra (49.1 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Which component is the limiting factor at 4K Ultra?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor, as the 4K Ultra result of 49.1 FPS is the lowest measured value, and the CPU's 93rd percentile ranking indicates it has more headroom than the GPU's 79th percentile.

Q: How does this combo rank against all tested combinations?

A: This combo ranks 573rd out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the top 32% of all configurations tested in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is the Ultra preset worth the performance cost at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra (68.2 FPS) is only 2.7 FPS slower than High (70.9 FPS), making Ultra the better choice since the performance difference is negligible.