Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX + AMD Radeon 890M

This combination of the 16-core AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX mobile processor and the integrated AMD Radeon 890M graphics represents a high-end CPU paired with an entry-level IGP, and the measured frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator reflect a system that is overwhelmingly limited by the graphics subsystem. Across all tested resolutions and settings, the average FPS ranges from 16 to 50, with the integrated GPU struggling to maintain playable frame rates at higher quality presets, while the CPU’s substantial multi-threaded headroom remains largely untapped in this title.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a steep and consistent performance penalty as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings drops the average frame rate from 50 FPS to 40 FPS, a 20% reduction. The next step, from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Low, brings the average down further to 30 FPS, another 25% loss. This linear degradation pattern strongly indicates that the AMD Radeon 890M’s rendering throughput is the limiting factor; the CPU is not the bottleneck at these settings.

At Medium settings, the same resolution scaling trend is visible but with slightly smaller absolute drops. The average FPS goes from 39 at 1080p to 31 at 1440p (a 21% decrease) and then to 23 at 4K (a 26% decrease from 1440p). The frame time consistency also degrades, as the measured minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 20 FPS, while the maximum is 26 FPS, indicating a narrow but noticeable variance band. At High settings, the pattern continues: 29 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 21% and 26% respectively, mirroring the Medium preset’s behavior.

Ultra settings are the most demanding, and the scaling curve becomes even steeper. The average FPS falls from 28 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p (a 21% decrease) and then to 16 at 4K (a 27% decrease from 1440p). This consistent 20-27% performance loss per resolution step across all presets confirms that the Radeon 890M’s fill rate and shader processing capabilities are the constraining resources. The resolution scaling behavior is uniform regardless of quality preset, which is expected for an integrated GPU where memory bandwidth and compute units are shared with the system. At 4K, all presets except Low produce average frame rates below 24 FPS, which is below the standard threshold for smooth motion in flight simulation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, and it carries 64 MB of L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,713 and a single-core score of 6,030, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs tested. Its average benchmark score of 76,212 is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, which scores 76,155 with a delta of only 0.1%, and it is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which scores 75,779.

Despite this immense computational capability, the measured frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator do not reflect the CPU’s potential. In a GPU-bound scenario, the CPU’s role is to feed the graphics pipeline with draw calls and simulation data, and this processor has ample headroom. The fact that the average FPS at 1080p Low is 50 FPS, while the same resolution at Ultra is 28 FPS, shows that the graphical settings have a far greater impact on performance than any CPU-side variable. The CPU’s high single-thread performance, evidenced by a PassMark single-thread score of 3,907, is sufficient for the game’s main thread, but the integrated GPU cannot translate that capability into higher frame rates.

The Ryzen 9 8945HX’s multi-threaded prowess, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 51,405 and a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 17,939, suggests that it could handle complex flight simulation scenarios with numerous AI aircraft or detailed scenery without breaking a sweat. However, the benchmark results here are limited by the Radeon 890M’s output. The CPU is not the limiting component in any of the measured configurations; it is operating well within its performance envelope. If this processor were paired with a discrete graphics card, the frame rates would likely be substantially higher, but that is outside the scope of this data.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process. It features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, with 16 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, delivering a peak FP32 throughput of 5.939 TFLOPS. Its memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, meaning the VRAM size, type, and bus width are all dependent on the host system’s DDR5 memory configuration.

In the PassMark G3D benchmark, the Radeon 890M scores 8,076, which places it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 9,210, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273, delta -0.7%). This places it in the same performance tier as a mid-range discrete GPU from several generations ago, which explains its struggles with a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator at high resolutions.

The GPU’s role in these results is decisive. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 50, which is playable but not smooth. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 39 FPS, and at High it is 29 FPS, with Ultra at 28 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is already saturated and additional settings have diminishing returns. The 890M’s 32 ROPs and 64 TMUs are insufficient for the pixel and texture throughput required at 4K, where even Low settings only produce 30 FPS average. The system-shared memory bandwidth, which is dependent on the CPU’s dual-channel DDR5 configuration, is likely a secondary bottleneck, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory access.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 performance in PassMark is a score of 37, while DirectX 11 scores 73 and DirectX 9 scores 97. This suggests that the RDNA 3.5 architecture is not particularly well-optimized for the workloads in this flight simulator, which may use a mix of DirectX 11 and 12 features. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 40,808 is higher than the OpenCL score of 37,254, but neither translates into playable frame rates at higher settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in these benchmark results?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU has a 95th percentile ranking and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,713, while the GPU sits in the 45th percentile. The consistent 20-27% FPS drops across resolution steps indicate a GPU bottleneck.

Q: How does the Radeon 890M compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Radeon 890M scores 8,076 in PassMark G3D, with an average score of 9,210. It is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221) and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273).

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, while Ultra settings produce an average of 28 FPS. This is a 44% reduction in performance from Low to Ultra.

Q: Can this system maintain 30 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: Only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 30. At Medium settings, the average drops to 23 FPS, and at High and Ultra, it falls to 17 and 16 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 8945HX compare to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX in average CPU score?

A: The Ryzen 9 8945HX has an average score of 76,212, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX’s score of 76,155.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination depend heavily on the target resolution and the user’s tolerance for frame rate variability. At 1920x1080, Low settings provide the best average FPS at 50, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth 60 FPS target. Medium settings at 1080p yield 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 44 FPS, which is a reasonable compromise for users who prioritize visual quality over raw frame rate. High settings at 1080p drop to 29 FPS average, and Ultra at 28 FPS, which are both below the 30 FPS threshold for acceptable playability in a flight simulator.

At 2560x1440, Low settings are the only viable option, producing 40 FPS average. Medium settings at this resolution drop to 31 FPS average with a minimum of 26 FPS, which is borderline, but High and Ultra (23 and 22 FPS average respectively) are not recommended. At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. Low settings produce exactly 30 FPS average, which is the minimum for playable performance. Medium settings at 4K drop to 23 FPS average, and High and Ultra are effectively unplayable at 17 and 16 FPS average.

The data indicates that Low settings are the only preset that maintains an average FPS above 30 at all three resolutions. For users who prefer Medium settings, 1080p is the only resolution where the average FPS exceeds 35. The measured minimum FPS values at Medium settings (33 at 1080p, 26 at 1440p, and 20 at 4K) show that frame pacing becomes less consistent as resolution increases. The recommendation is to use Low settings for any resolution above 1080p, and to consider Medium at 1080p if visual fidelity is prioritized over a higher average frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 50 FPS, Medium produces 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 44, High produces 29 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 10 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS. This shows diminishing returns at the highest quality preset.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are: Low at 40 FPS, Medium at 31 FPS (with a minimum of 26 and maximum of 36), High at 23 FPS, and Ultra at 22 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, between Medium and High is 8 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 1 FPS. The pattern is identical to 1080p, but with absolute values that are 10-20% lower.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS values are: Low at 30 FPS, Medium at 23 FPS (with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 26), High at 17 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, between Medium and High is 6 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 1 FPS. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 20, which is below the 30 FPS threshold, and the maximum of 26 FPS is still below 30.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Medium results in a 22% average FPS reduction, from Medium to High results in a 26% reduction, and from High to Ultra results in a negligible 3% reduction. This suggests that the Ultra preset offers no meaningful performance advantage over High, and the GPU is already saturated at High settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and AMD Radeon 890M ranks 2,829 out of 2,996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 6% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU’s low performance percentile. Despite having a top-tier CPU that ranks in the 95th percentile of all processors, the integrated GPU’s 45th percentile ranking drags the overall combo performance down significantly.

The ranking reflects the fact that this game is heavily GPU-bound, and the Radeon 890M’s performance level is comparable to a discrete GPU from several generations ago, as evidenced by its near-identical average benchmark score to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9,273 vs 9,210, a 0.7% difference). The CPU’s high performance does not compensate for the GPU’s limitations in this title. The combo rank of 2,829 out of 2,996 indicates that the vast majority of tested systems outperform this configuration, which is expected given the integrated graphics solution.

The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor, as its synthetic benchmark scores are exceptional. The Ryzen 9 8945HX’s nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, has a nearly identical average score (76,155 vs 76,212), and both are in the same performance tier. However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the frame rates are dictated by the GPU, and the Radeon 890M is simply not powerful enough to deliver smooth performance at higher settings. The combo’s low ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU bottleneck, and users seeking better performance in this game would need a discrete graphics solution.