Microsoft Flight Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800M lands at rank 1977 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this combo in the lower third of all tested systems, which is a surprising outcome given the individual component credentials. The processor sits in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 73rd percentile among all graphics cards—yet the combination still ends up deep in the mid-pack for this specific title.

The ranking gap between component-level percentiles and game-level performance points to a system that is not translating its raw hardware potential into flight sim frame rates as effectively as one might expect. Benchmark results indicate that this combo trails a significant portion of the field, with only 1019 configurations performing worse. The data suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's demands align poorly with what this particular CPU-GPU pairing excels at, or that the mobile implementation of these parts carries overhead that desktop-oriented rivals do not face.

When looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the margin between them is razor-thin. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 0.1% higher on average, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D sits 0.6% behind. This tells us the processor is performing right at its expected level—there is no CPU-side anomaly dragging the combo down. Similarly, the GPU's closest competitors—the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (0.3% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% behind)—indicate that the graphics card is also behaving within its expected envelope.

The implication is that this combo ranks poorly not because either component is defective or underperforming in isolation, but because the combination itself is not well-suited to Microsoft Flight Simulator's specific workload. The game appears to favor different hardware characteristics than what this mobile platform provides. For context, the combo's rank of 1977 means roughly two-thirds of all tested systems deliver better frame rates in this title, despite the CPU being in the top 5% and the GPU in the top quarter of their respective categories.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The GPU's base clock is 1295 MHz, with a game clock of 2145 MHz and a boost clock reaching 2335 MHz. These specifications place it as a capable mobile graphics solution, built on the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth prove to be significant factors. The game's texture streaming and terrain rendering demands are substantial, and the 12 GB frame buffer is sufficient for the tested resolutions. At 4K Ultra settings, the combo manages 34 FPS average—a playable but not smooth experience. Dropping to 4K High raises that to 36 FPS, while 4K Medium achieves 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 54 FPS. The 4K Low preset reaches 61 FPS, which is the only 4K configuration that clears the 60 FPS threshold.

The GPU's pixel rate of 224.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 560.4 GTexel/s provide the raw throughput needed for high-resolution rendering, but the data shows that this card struggles to maintain fluid frame rates at 4K with higher quality settings. The 34-36 FPS range at Ultra and High 4K settings suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution, as the CPU has ample headroom based on its multi-core performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2994 and Passmark G3D score of 17613 give a general indication of the GPU's compute and rendering capabilities, though these synthetic benchmarks do not fully capture the flight sim's specific demands.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how settings impact performance across three resolutions. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 102 FPS, Medium hits 80 FPS, High reaches 60 FPS, and Ultra drops to 57 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 22 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS—suggesting that Ultra at 1080p is a reasonable choice if visual quality matters more than raw frame rate.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low delivers 83 FPS, Medium achieves 64 FPS, High manages 48 FPS, and Ultra falls to 46 FPS. The Medium preset here offers the best balance, with a 55 FPS minimum that keeps the experience smooth. The 16 FPS gap between Low and Medium is acceptable, but the 16 FPS drop from Medium to High is more punishing. For 1440p gaming, Medium is the sweet spot—it maintains a playable frame rate while offering significantly better visuals than Low.

At 4K, the choices become more constrained. Low achieves 61 FPS, Medium hits 47 FPS with a 40 FPS minimum, High manages 36 FPS, and Ultra drops to 34 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K is the recommended configuration, as it stays above 40 FPS on average and provides a playable experience without the visual degradation of Low. The 27 FPS difference between Low and Medium at 4K is substantial, but the 13 FPS gap between Medium and Ultra is also notable. For users prioritizing smoothness, 4K Low at 61 FPS is the only option that consistently stays above 60 FPS, but it comes with significant visual compromises.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080, the Medium preset provides 80 FPS average with a 68 FPS minimum and 92 FPS maximum. This offers the best balance between visual quality and frame rate stability. The High preset achieves exactly 60 FPS, while Ultra drops to 57 FPS—both remain playable but with less headroom.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Yes, but with caveats. At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 61 FPS average, Medium reaches 47 FPS with a 40 FPS minimum, High manages 36 FPS, and Ultra drops to 34 FPS. For a consistently smooth experience, 4K Low is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, while Medium provides a playable 47 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX scores 0.1% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, 0.4% higher than the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, and 0.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D in average benchmark scores.

Q: What is the GPU's performance relative to its closest competitors?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800M scores 0.2% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, and 0.8% higher than the AMD FirePro S7150 in average benchmark scores.

Q: How does the FPS scale from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the combo achieves 60 FPS at 1920x1080, 48 FPS at 2560x1440, and 36 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 40% drop from 1440p to 4K, indicating that the GPU becomes increasingly stressed at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX scores 42,713 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 17,939 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 4,305 in Cinebench R15 multi-core. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 51,405, placing it in the 95th percentile among all CPUs.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across the three tested resolutions reveals how this combo scales with increasing pixel counts. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 102 at 1080p to 83 at 1440p (a 19 FPS or 18.6% decrease), then to 61 at 4K (a 22 FPS or 26.5% decrease from 1440p). This scaling pattern is relatively gentle, suggesting that at Low settings, the CPU is playing a more significant role in determining frame rates.

At Medium settings, the scaling becomes steeper. The combo delivers 80 FPS at 1080p, 64 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop), and 47 FPS at 4K (a 26.6% drop from 1440p). The minimum FPS also scales down, from 68 at 1080p to 55 at 1440p to 40 at 4K. This indicates that as settings increase, the GPU's workload grows proportionally with resolution, and the graphics card becomes more of a limiting factor.

High settings show the most pronounced scaling. From 60 FPS at 1080p to 48 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop) to 36 FPS at 4K (a 25% drop from 1440p). The consistent 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p across Low, Medium, and High settings suggests that the CPU-GPU balance remains fairly stable at these resolutions. However, the 4K drops become more severe as settings increase, indicating that the GPU's 12 GB memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are being pushed harder at higher quality levels.

Ultra settings follow a similar pattern: 57 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p (a 19.3% drop), and 34 FPS at 4K (a 26.1% drop from 1440p). The data shows that this combo loses roughly half its 1080p performance when moving to 4K, regardless of quality preset. This scaling behavior points to the GPU as the primary limiter at 4K, while the CPU maintains sufficient headroom to feed the graphics card at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Dragon Range codename. It operates on the 5 nm process node from TSMC, containing 13,140 million transistors across a dual-chip design with 2x 71 mm² die sizes. The CPU has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a TDP of 55 W. Its cache configuration includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's multi-core capabilities are not the primary driver of performance, as evidenced by the combo's rank of 1977 out of 2996. The processor's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,713 and Passmark multi-thread score of 51,405 place it in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, yet this raw compute power does not translate to top-tier flight sim frame rates. The single-core performance—Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,030 and Passmark single-thread score of 3,907—is strong but not exceptional, which matters more for a simulation title that often relies on single-threaded game logic.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 is adequate for feeding the GPU, but the game's performance scaling suggests that the processor is not the bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the CPU likely has a larger influence, but as resolution and settings increase, the GPU takes over as the limiting factor. The 16 cores and 32 threads provide ample parallelism for background tasks and simulation overhead, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's engine does not appear to fully utilize this many cores effectively.

The nearest rivals for this CPU—all within 0.6% average benchmark scores—confirm that the processor is performing exactly as expected. There is no indication of thermal throttling or power limitation dragging down the combo's rank. Instead, the data suggests that the game simply does not favor this particular configuration, and the CPU's substantial compute resources go underutilized in this workload. The 5 nm process node and 55 W TDP indicate an efficient design, but efficiency does not equate to flight sim dominance.