Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding flight simulation title, and the benchmark data for the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX paired with the AMD Radeon 760M integrated GPU reveals a system that is severely constrained by its graphics solution at almost every resolution and settings level. The measured frames per second (FPS) across the board indicate that this combination is only suitable for the most modest visual configurations, and even then, it struggles to provide a consistently smooth experience. This analysis details the performance scaling, component roles, and practical recommendations based solely on the measured data.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a stark and predictable decline in average FPS as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the "Low" settings preset, the average frame rate drops from 34 FPS at 1920x1080, to 28 FPS at 2560x1440, reaching 20 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 41.2% reduction in average FPS when moving from 1080p to 4K. While a drop is expected, the magnitude here indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the resolution scaling directly impacts the render load. The "High" preset shows a similar pattern: 20 FPS at 1920x1080, 16 FPS at 2560x1440, and 12 FPS at 3840x2160, a 40% loss from 1080p to 4K. For the "Medium" preset, the average FPS falls from 27 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p and finally to 16 at 4K, a 40.7% drop. "Ultra" settings provide the lowest starting point, with 19 FPS at 1080p, 15 FPS at 1440p, and 11 FPS at 4K, a 42.1% decline.

The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is less severe but still noticeable: for "Low" settings, the drop is from 34 to 28 FPS (a 17.6% reduction), and for "Medium" from 27 to 22 FPS (an 18.5% reduction). The transition from 1440p to 4K yields a more significant penalty. For instance, "Low" settings drop from 28 to 20 FPS (a 28.6% reduction), and "High" from 16 to 12 FPS (a 25% reduction). This pattern is consistent with a GPU that is overburdened at high resolutions; the fill-rate and memory bandwidth demands of 4K exceed what the Radeon 760M can provide. The data strongly suggests that the AMD Radeon 760M is the primary bottleneck; the CPU, with its high core count, is unlikely to be the limiting factor at these low frame rates. The benchmark results indicate that the "Low" preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that approaches a playable average FPS, while all other settings and resolutions result in sub-30 FPS averages, which is far below the threshold for a smooth simulation experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS I can expect from this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS measured is 34 FPS, which occurs at a resolution of 1920x1080 with the "Low" settings preset. This is the only measured configuration that breaks the 30 FPS mark.

Q: How does the performance at 2560x1440 compare to 1920x1080?

A: At 2560x1440, the average FPS is lower across all settings. For example, "Low" settings drop from 34 FPS at 1080p to 28 FPS at 1440p, "Medium" drops from 27 to 22 FPS, "High" drops from 20 to 16 FPS, and "Ultra" drops from 19 to 15 FPS.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 760M strong enough for 4K gaming in this title?

A: No. The data shows that at 3840x2160, the average FPS is only 20 FPS with "Low" settings, 16 FPS with "Medium", 12 FPS with "High", and 11 FPS with "Ultra". These frame rates are not smooth, indicating the GPU is severely underpowered for 4K in this game.

Q: What is the performance difference between the "Low" and "Ultra" presets at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset averages 34 FPS, while the "Ultra" preset averages 19 FPS. This is a 15 FPS difference, showing a substantial performance cost for higher graphical fidelity.

Q: Does the CPU have any impact on the FPS at the tested settings?

A: The data indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck. Given the very low FPS across all resolutions, the CPU's performance is not the primary constraint. The CPU is a high-end mobile processor with a high multi-core score, but the GPU cannot push enough frames to utilize it fully.

Q: Are the minimum FPS values available for all settings?

A: No. Minimum FPS values are only provided for the "Medium" preset: 13 FPS at 3840x2160, 18 FPS at 2560x1440, and 23 FPS at 1920x1080. For all other presets, the minimum FPS is not reported in the data.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a playable experience is the "Low" preset at 1920x1080, which produces an average of 34 FPS. This is the only preset where the average FPS exceeds 30, which is often considered a minimum threshold for a playable experience in flight simulators. The "Medium" preset at 1920x1080 offers an average of 27 FPS with minimums of 23 FPS, which is a slightly lower but still potentially playable experience, though it might feel less smooth in dense scenarios. At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset is the only configuration to break the 20 FPS mark, hitting 28 FPS, but this is still below the 30 FPS target. The "High" and "Ultra" presets at any resolution yield average FPS in the range of 11 to 20 FPS, which is too low for a satisfying experience.

For users prioritizing smoothness, the "Low" preset at 1920x1080 is the clear winner. If visual fidelity is more important than a strictly smooth frame rate, the "Medium" preset at 1080p might be an option, as it provides a 27 FPS average. However, the data suggests that any setting above "Medium" is likely to produce a sub-optimal frame rate for this hardware. The "Ultra" preset provides the worst performance, with an average of 19 FPS at 1080p, 15 FPS at 1440p, and 11 FPS at 4K. The recommendation is to prioritize resolution and settings that keep the average FPS as high as possible, and the data shows that is the "Low" preset at 1080p. The "High" preset at 1080p averages 20 FPS, which is better than the "Ultra" preset at the same resolution but still lower than "Medium" and "Low". The combination of "Low" settings at 1920x1080 is the only one that allows the game to run at an average FPS above 30, and should be the target for any user trying to get a smooth performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and the AMD Radeon 760M ranks at 3703 out of a total of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom percentile of all tested combos, indicating that its performance in this specific game is exceptionally poor when compared to other hardware configurations. The rank of 3703 out of 3714 means that only 11 combinations perform worse than this setup, which highlights how severely the GPU is holding back the overall experience. The CPU itself is not the issue, as it is a high-end mobile processor, but the GPU's 512 shading units and limited memory bandwidth are simply not capable of handling the demands of this simulation at any reasonable resolution or settings.

The data shows that this combo is not a viable option for playing Microsoft Flight Simulator at any of the tested settings, with only the "Low" preset at 1080p reaching an average of 34 FPS. The rank of 3703 out of 3714 also indicates that the performance is almost the worst among all tested combinations. This is a significant finding for anyone considering this hardware pairing, as the CPU's performance is wasted due to the GPU's inability to keep up. The high rank of the CPU and low rank of the GPU creates a severe bottleneck that results in this extremely low overall rank. For context, the GPU's average benchmark score of 6019 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, but the GPU is still not capable of handling this game.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It has 64 MB of L3 cache and supports up to 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 42713 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6030 in single-core. It has a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score is 76212, which puts its performance very close to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, with a 0.1% difference in average score. The CPU's high multi-core performance, with 16 cores and 32 threads, is well suited for the simulation aspects of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which often use multiple cores. However, the data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game.

The CPU's performance is not a bottleneck because the frame rates are so low. At 1920x1080 with "Low" settings, the CPU can likely deliver more frames than the GPU can render. The CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads are a strong asset, but they are not utilized to their full potential because the GPU cannot keep up. The CPU has a high multi-core score of 42713 in Cinebench R23, which shows it can handle complex calculations, but the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The boost clock of 5.40 GHz is also high, which helps with single-threaded performance, important for some game logic, but again, the frame rate is GPU-limited. The CPU's scores are strong, but they do not translate into high FPS in this game due to the GPU's limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a full picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset averages 34 FPS, "Medium" averages 27 FPS, "High" averages 20 FPS, and "Ultra" averages 19 FPS. The "Medium" preset has a minimum of 23 FPS and a maximum of 31 FPS. At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset averages 28 FPS, "Medium" averages 22 FPS, "High" averages 16 FPS, and "Ultra" averages 15 FPS. The "Medium" preset has a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS. At 3840x2160, the "Low" preset averages 20 FPS, "Medium" averages 16 FPS, "High" averages 12 FPS, and "Ultra" averages 11 FPS. The "Medium" preset has a minimum of 13 FPS and a maximum of 18 FPS.

The data shows that the performance drops are consistent across all settings when moving from 1080p to 4K. For "Low," the drop is from 34 to 20 FPS; for "Medium," from 27 to 16 FPS; for "High," from 20 to 12 FPS; and for "Ultra," from 19 to 11 FPS. The FPS numbers show how the GPU's limitations are exposed at higher resolutions and settings. The "Ultra" preset at 4K is the worst, averaging 11 FPS. The "Low" preset at 1080p is the best, averaging 34 FPS. The data also shows that the "Medium" preset at 1080p is the only other configuration that can maintain a minimum FPS above 20, with a 23 FPS minimum. The "High" and "Ultra" presets at 1080p are only 20 and 19 FPS, respectively, which are barely above the "Low" preset's 4K performance.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU in the AMD Phoenix chip, based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture. It has 512 shading units, a base clock of 800 MHz, and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. It has 8 ray tracing cores, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GPU's memory is System Shared, meaning it uses the system's memory, and its bandwidth is System Dependent. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 5310 in Passmark G3D, 400 in 3D Mark Steel Nomad DX12, and 20255 in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score is 6019, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its performance is close to the AMD Radeon RX 6400, with a 0.3% delta.

The GPU's performance in the benchmarks is modest, and its 512 shading units are a fraction of what a dedicated GPU would have. The Passmark G3D score of 5310 is not high, and the Vulkan score of 30336 is also not impressive. The GPU's low compute performance is reflected in the game's FPS. The game is heavily GPU-bound, and the low FPS at all resolutions shows that the GPU is the bottleneck. The GPU's memory is System Shared, which means it shares the system's memory bandwidth, which can further reduce performance. The GPU's boost clock of 2599 MHz is a decent clock speed, but it's not enough to overcome the low number of shading units. The GPU's 16 ROPs is also low, which limits its pixel fill rate. The 41.58 GPixel/s pixel rate is not enough for high-resolution rendering. The GPU's texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s is also low. The GPU's FP32 performance of 5.323 TFLOPS is also modest. Ultimately, the GPU is the primary reason for the poor performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the data clearly demonstrates that the combo's rank is a direct result of the GPU's limitations. The GPU is also the reason why the FPS is low across all settings and resolutions. The data shows no scenario where the combination delivers a smooth experience, and the GPU is the clear bottleneck.