Microsoft Flight Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile lands at rank 1978 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the 53rd percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 47% of tested combos deliver higher frame rates in this title. The ranking suggests a mid-pack position that feels surprising given the hardware involved—a 16-core Zen 4 flagship CPU and a 40-series mobile GPU should theoretically push higher, but Flight Simulator’s unique engine demands more from both components than typical games.

Breaking down the components individually, the CPU sits at the 95th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 73rd percentile among all graphics cards. The gap between these two percentiles hints at an imbalance: the processor is far more capable relative to its peers than the graphics card is relative to its own competition. This disparity likely explains why the combo’s overall rank (53rd percentile) trails the CPU’s standing by a wide margin—the GPU becomes the limiting factor in many scenarios.

Comparing to the CPU’s nearest rivals, the Ryzen 9 8945HX posts an average benchmark score of 76212, which is essentially tied with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX at 76155 (a 0.1% difference). It also edges out the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D by 0.6% (75779) but trails the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P by 0.4% (76492) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX by the same margin (76513). These are all within a single percentage point, indicating the 8945HX is competitively positioned in raw compute, though that strength doesn’t fully translate to Flight Simulator’s specific workload.

The GPU’s nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight clustering. The RTX 4070 Mobile’s average benchmark score of 27435 matches the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT exactly (0% delta) and comes within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (27565). It also edges the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell by 1.1% (27135) and trails the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 by 1.5% (27839). These margins are razor-thin, suggesting the mobile 4070 punches at desktop-class levels in synthetic tests, yet the in-game rank reveals that Flight Simulator’s real-world demands don’t align perfectly with those synthetic scores.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a modest memory configuration for a flight simulator that streams vast landscapes, airport scenery, and weather data continuously. The 8 GB capacity is adequate for 1080p and 1440p play, but at 4K with higher presets, the frame buffer could become a constraint—though the measured data shows playable results even at Ultra settings, so the capacity appears sufficient for this title’s current demands.

Clock speeds see a base of 1395 MHz and a boost of 1695 MHz, which are conservative figures for a mobile part. The memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, and the 128-bit bus width limits peak bandwidth compared to wider-memory desktop cards. The GPU’s 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines provide a solid foundation, while 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores enable the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set that Flight Simulator can leverage. The FP32 throughput of 15.62 TFLOPS places this GPU firmly in the mid-high mobile tier, but the data suggests it’s the bottleneck in many measured scenarios.

The 73rd percentile GPU ranking versus the 95th percentile CPU ranking is the key story here. In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU’s average score of 27435 places it near desktop cards like the RX 6700 XT and RTX 3090, yet Flight Simulator’s frame rates don’t scale proportionally. The game’s engine appears to reward raw geometry throughput and memory bandwidth heavily, and the 4070 Mobile’s 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is a fraction of what desktop high-end cards offer. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages just 40 FPS, and at 4K High it reaches 42 FPS—both figures suggesting the GPU is working near its limits. The 8 GB VRAM also comes into play at 4K, where texture streaming demands can spike beyond comfortable margins, though no crashes or stutters are indicated in the data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable yet informative scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 119 FPS at 1920x1080 to 96 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 19% reduction), then to 71 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 40% reduction from 1080p). This steep decline indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is becoming the primary constraint as pixel count rises—the CPU has enough headroom to feed frames, but the 4070 Mobile can’t maintain throughput at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the pattern shows 93 FPS at 1080p, 75 FPS at 1440p (down 19%), and 55 FPS at 4K (down 41% from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Medium suggests a linear scaling relationship tied to pixel count rather than a sudden threshold effect. The minimum and maximum frame rates at Medium settings (79-107 at 1080p, 64-86 at 1440p, 47-63 at 4K) show the frame time variance grows slightly at higher resolutions, but the averages remain stable.

High settings tell a different story: 70 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p (down 20%), and 42 FPS at 4K (down 40% from 1080p). Ultra settings follow nearly the same trajectory: 66 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p (down 18%), and 40 FPS at 4K (down 39%). The fact that Ultra and High produce nearly identical results at each resolution (66 vs 70 at 1080p, 54 vs 56 at 1440p, 40 vs 42 at 4K) suggests the engine is hitting a hard performance ceiling that additional detail settings can’t overcome—the GPU is saturated, and the CPU can’t compensate.

The scaling data implies the limiting component shifts with resolution. At 1080p, the CPU holds more influence, as evidenced by the large gap between Low (119 FPS) and Ultra (66 FPS)—a 53 FPS spread that indicates settings changes have a massive impact. At 4K, that spread narrows to 31 FPS (71 Low vs 40 Ultra), showing the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. The CPU’s 16 Zen 4 cores and high boost clock help maintain decent minimum performance, but the GPU’s 256 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot keep pace with 4K’s pixel throughput demands.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear hierarchy for optimizing the experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1080p, Medium settings deliver 93 FPS average with a minimum of 79 FPS—this is the sweet spot for smooth gameplay without sacrificing too much visual fidelity. High settings at 70 FPS are still playable, and Ultra at 66 FPS remains above the 60 FPS threshold, but the 27 FPS gap between Medium and Ultra means the visual uplift from those extra settings comes at a significant performance cost.

For 1440p, Medium settings at 75 FPS (minimum 64) provide the best balance of smoothness and quality. High settings at 56 FPS dip below the 60 FPS ideal, and Ultra at 54 FPS is similar, making Medium the clear recommendation for this resolution. The 21 FPS difference between Medium and High at 1440p suggests the higher presets add substantial strain without proportional visual gains in this simulator’s rendering pipeline.

At 4K, the choices become more constrained. Medium settings at 55 FPS (minimum 47) are the only preset that maintains near-playable performance, while Low at 71 FPS is the smoothest option but sacrifices significant visual detail. High at 42 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS are borderline playable for a flight simulator where frame rates below 45 FPS can feel choppy during fast maneuvers or dense scenery flyovers. The 4K data strongly suggests Medium as the default recommendation, with Low reserved for users who prioritize frame consistency over visuals.

Across all resolutions, the data indicates that Medium settings offer the most consistent experience in terms of the ratio of visual quality to frame rate. The minimum FPS figures at Medium (79 at 1080p, 64 at 1440p, 47 at 4K) are always within a reasonable range of the average, suggesting fewer severe frame time spikes compared to other presets. Low settings provide the highest headroom but lose too much detail for a simulator where reading cockpit instruments and ground details matters. High and Ultra deliver diminishing returns, as their frame rates cluster closely together at every resolution—a sign that the engine’s bottleneck is not raw shading power but rather the memory bandwidth and fill rate limitations of the 4070 Mobile.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range produces these averages: Low hits 119 FPS, Medium reaches 93 FPS (minimum 79, maximum 107), High achieves 70 FPS, and Ultra settles at 66 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 53 FPS, highlighting how much headroom exists at this resolution. The Medium preset’s minimum of 79 FPS is particularly strong, ensuring that even demanding scenes with heavy cloud layers or dense airports won’t drop below smooth thresholds.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 96 FPS, Medium at 75 FPS (minimum 64, maximum 86), High at 56 FPS, and Ultra at 54 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 42 FPS, and the Medium minimum of 64 FPS remains respectable but shows more variance than at 1080p. High and Ultra nearly converge at 56 and 54 FPS respectively, indicating the GPU is approaching its throughput ceiling for this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results compress further: Low averages 71 FPS, Medium averages 55 FPS (minimum 47, maximum 63), High averages 42 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread shrinks to just 31 FPS, and the Medium minimum of 47 FPS is close to the average—suggesting the frame rate is tightly bound by GPU limits rather than fluctuating with scene complexity. This compression is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario where the CPU has ample headroom but the graphics processor cannot push more pixels.

The pattern across resolutions reveals that the CPU’s 16 cores and 32 threads are never the limiting factor in the measured data. The fact that Ultra and High produce nearly identical frame rates at each resolution (66 vs 70 at 1080p, 54 vs 56 at 1440p, 40 vs 42 at 4K) means the extra detail settings in Ultra are not taxing the GPU further—they’re hitting a wall that likely involves memory bandwidth or rasterization throughput rather than shader compute. The 128-bit memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth stand out as the likely constraint, as Flight Simulator’s terrain streaming and shadow rendering are bandwidth-intensive workloads.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 Medium provides 93 FPS average with a 79 FPS minimum, which is the smoothest playable experience. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average drops to 75 FPS with a 64 FPS minimum, which remains acceptable. 3840x2160 Medium yields 55 FPS average (47 minimum), which is borderline playable but less consistent.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: It ranks 1978 out of 3714 total combos, placing it in the 53rd percentile. The CPU alone sits at the 95th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 73rd percentile among all graphics cards, indicating the GPU is the weaker link.

Q: Does Ultra settings provide a meaningful improvement over High?

A: No, the measured data shows Ultra and High produce nearly identical frame rates at every resolution: 66 vs 70 FPS at 1080p, 54 vs 56 FPS at 1440p, and 40 vs 42 FPS at 4K. The performance cost of Ultra does not translate to measurable frame rate differences, suggesting the engine is bottlenecked elsewhere.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM sufficient for 4K play?

A: The measured results show 4K Medium averages 55 FPS and 4K Low averages 71 FPS, indicating 8 GB is sufficient for this title at current settings. However, the 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth appear to be the limiting factor, as frame rates compress tightly at 4K regardless of settings.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 Mobile compare to desktop GPUs in synthetic benchmarks?

A: Its average benchmark score of 27435 is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (27425, 0% delta) and within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (27565). This places it in desktop mid-high range territory, though in-game performance in Flight Simulator doesn’t fully reflect that standing.

Q: What does the CPU’s performance tell us about its role in this game?

A: The Ryzen 9 8945HX scores 42713 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6030 in single-core, ranking at the 95th percentile overall. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, scores 76155 in average benchmarks versus 76212—a 0.1% difference. This compute headroom means the CPU is rarely the bottleneck, as evidenced by the similar frame rates between High and Ultra presets.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process. Its base clock of 2.50 GHz boosts up to 5.40 GHz, and it carries 64 MB of L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 per core. These specifications position it as a top-tier mobile CPU, and its Cinebench R23 scores of 42713 multi-core and 6030 single-core confirm that positioning. The 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs underscores its capability, yet in this game, that power doesn’t translate to top-tier frame rates because the GPU holds the combo back.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score are all within 0.6% of its 76212 average, creating a tight cluster at the top of the mobile CPU hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX trails by just 0.1%, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 0.6% behind. This suggests that swapping to any of these CPUs would produce negligible changes in Flight Simulator’s frame rates, since the game is not CPU-bound in the measured scenarios. The CPU’s 32 threads provide ample parallel processing for the simulator’s AI traffic, weather simulation, and physics calculations, but those workloads are not the primary bottleneck.

Evidence from the resolution scaling data reinforces the CPU’s secondary role. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 119 FPS, which is a high ceiling that suggests the CPU can feed frames quickly when the GPU isn’t stressed. However, the drop to 71 FPS at 4K Low (a 40% reduction) aligns with pixel count increases, not CPU limitations. The fact that Ultra settings at 1080p (66 FPS) are barely faster than Ultra at 4K (40 FPS) in percentage terms further confirms that the GPU’s fill rate and bandwidth are the constraining factors. The CPU’s 5.40 GHz boost clock and large cache help maintain consistent frame pacing, as evidenced by the Medium preset’s minimum FPS figures (79 at 1080p, 64 at 1440p, 47 at 4K) staying close to averages, but it cannot overcome the GPU’s throughput ceiling.