Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a unique workload that scales dramatically with resolution and settings, and the measured data for the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile reveals a system that is heavily influenced by both components depending on the configuration. The benchmark results show a clear hierarchy where the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions and quality presets, while the CPU's substantial core count and clock speeds keep frame rates high at lower settings. This analysis examines the captured FPS data to understand the balance of power between these two flagship mobile components.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a predictable and steep decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but the magnitude of that drop varies significantly depending on the quality preset. At the Low preset, average FPS falls from 166 at 1080p to 133 at 1440p, a 19.9% reduction, and then to 98 at 4K, which is a further 26.3% drop from the 1440p figure. This indicates that at Low settings, the system is initially more CPU-bound at 1080p, but the transition to 4K still creates a substantial load on the GPU. The scaling at Medium settings is also steep, moving from 129 FPS at 1080p to 104 FPS at 1440p (a 19.4% reduction) and then to 77 FPS at 4K (a 26.0% drop from 1440p). This consistent pattern suggests that even at Medium quality, the rendering resolution is a major factor in determining the final frame rate.

The High and Ultra presets show a slightly different scaling behavior, as they are already more demanding on the GPU at 1080p. For High settings, the average FPS goes from 97 at 1080p to 78 at 1440p, a 19.6% drop, and then to 58 at 4K, a 25.6% decrease from the 1440p result. The Ultra preset follows a similar trajectory, with 92 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 74 at 1440p (a 19.6% reduction) and then to 55 at 4K (a 25.7% drop). The relative consistency of these percentage drops across presets is notable; it suggests that the scaling penalty is primarily tied to pixel count, not the complexity of the scene. The data implies that the GPU has a finite capacity to fill pixels, and this capacity is the limiting factor as resolution climbs, regardless of whether the visual complexity is Low or Ultra.

This pattern also reveals that the system is not hitting a hard CPU bottleneck at 1080p, as the frame rates are still quite high. If the CPU were the sole limiter at 1080p, we would expect to see very similar FPS numbers across different presets at that resolution, but the jump from 92 FPS on Ultra to 166 FPS on Low shows a 80.4% increase. This wide variance suggests that the GPU is still doing meaningful work even at 1080p, and its performance scales with the quality settings. The data points to a system where the CPU can feed the GPU effectively at lower resolutions, but the GPU's rendering workload becomes the dominant constraint as resolution and detail levels increase.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile's role in this game is clearly defined by its memory and clock specifications, which directly translate to the measured frame rates. The GPU is equipped with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. This is a substantial amount of bandwidth that allows the GPU to handle the large texture datasets and complex scenery of Microsoft Flight Simulator without stalling. The memory clock is listed at 2250 MHz, with an effective rate of 18 Gbps, which is a high-speed configuration. The core clocks are also notable, with a base of 1335 MHz and a boost of 1695 MHz, which are relatively high for a mobile part, indicating that it can sustain high throughput on the 9728 shading units.

The benchmark results show that this GPU configuration is capable of delivering playable frame rates at 4K Ultra, with an average of 55 FPS. The fact that it can maintain above 60 FPS on High settings at 4K (58 FPS average) reflects its raw power. However, the data also shows that it is not invincible; the performance scales linearly with the quality preset, which points to the GPU's compute and memory subsystems being the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The 4K Medium result of 77 FPS is 40.0% higher than the 4K Ultra result, showing that the GPU has headroom if the visual load is reduced. The 16 GB memory capacity is also crucial, as flight simulators are known for using large amounts of VRAM, and the data suggests that even at Ultra settings, the GPU is not running out of memory, as the frame times remain relatively stable.

When comparing this GPU to its nearest rivals based on average benchmark scores, it sits between the NVIDIA RTX A6000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000. It is 0.9% faster than the RTX A6000 and 0.8% slower than the Quadro M6000, according to the deltaPct values. The RTX 5050 Mobile is also very close, with this GPU being 0.9% faster than that part. These are marginal differences in synthetic benchmarks, but in the context of this game, the specific architecture and memory configuration of the RTX 4090 Mobile appear to be well-suited. The data suggests that the GPU's high bandwidth and core count are effectively utilized by the game's rendering engine, as evidenced by the strong 4K performance metrics.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX plays a critical role in ensuring the GPU is fed with enough data, particularly at lower resolutions and settings. This processor is a 16-core, 32-thread part based on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The high boost clock is essential for single-threaded performance, which is often the bottleneck in flight simulators due to their complex simulation logic. The large 64 MB of L3 cache also helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores, reducing latency. The CPU's 55 W TDP is a mobile-appropriate power envelope, but the high clock speeds suggest it can still deliver strong performance when needed.

The benchmark data shows that this CPU is not the primary limiter at 1080p, as the FPS can scale up to 166 on Low settings. This indicates that the CPU can process the game's simulation and prepare frames faster than the GPU can render them at lower quality settings. However, the CPU's performance is still a factor, as the gap between 1080p and 1440p on Low settings is 33 FPS (166 to 133), which is a 19.9% reduction. If the CPU were completely unconstrained, we might expect a smaller drop when moving to a higher resolution, but the data shows that the GPU's workload is still significant. The CPU's multi-threading capabilities are also highlighted by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42713, which shows it can handle the background tasks and AI traffic simulation that Microsoft Flight Simulator runs concurrently with rendering.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, which is nearly identical in average score (0.1% faster for the AMD part), and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which is 0.6% slower. The Ryzen 9 8945HX also sits close to the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, being 0.4% faster. These tight margins in CPU benchmarks suggest that the processor's core architecture is highly competitive. In the context of this game, the data implies that the 5.40 GHz boost clock is more critical than the raw core count, as the simulation logic is often single-threaded. The 32 threads help with overall system responsiveness, but the high frequency is what allows the FPS to reach those higher numbers at 1080p.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested hardware combinations, this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile achieves a combo rank of 815 out of 3714 total combos. This places it in the top 22% of all tested systems, which is a strong showing, but not at the very top. The rank of 815 is a holistic measure that considers the combined performance across various benchmarks and games. The fact that it is not in the top 100 suggests that while both components are individually powerful, there may be other combinations that yield higher overall scores, possibly due to different CPU choices with higher single-thread performance or GPUs with even more specialized features for this title.

The percentile data for the individual components provides context. The CPU is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is better than 95% of its peers in general benchmark performance. The GPU is in the 84th percentile of all GPUs. When combined, the system ranks in the 78th percentile of combos (since 815/3714 is approximately 0.219, meaning it is better than 78.1% of the tested combos). This is a significant drop from the CPU's individual percentile, suggesting that the GPU might be holding the system back slightly in the overall ranking, or that the game-specific performance is not as favorable as the synthetic benchmarks would suggest. The data indicates that the CPU is a top-tier part, but the GPU, while strong, is not at the same relative performance level, which affects the final ranking.

This ranking data also implies that for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is heavily dependent on single-core CPU performance, the Ryzen 9 8945HX's high boost clock is a major asset. However, the combo rank suggests that other systems, perhaps with CPUs that have even higher single-thread scores, might achieve better results in this specific title. The deltaPct between this CPU and its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, is only 0.1%, so the choice between them is nearly a coin flip in synthetic tests. Yet, the actual in-game performance could vary based on how each architecture handles the game's specific instructions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings preset offers the best experience for this hardware combination. At 4K, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 55 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold that many consider smooth for a flight simulator. The High preset at 4K is very close, with an average of 58 FPS, which is still not a guaranteed 60 FPS but is likely to be a smoother experience overall due to less variance. To achieve a more comfortable margin, the Medium preset at 4K offers an average of 77 FPS, which is a 32.8% improvement over Ultra and provides more headroom for complex scenes with heavy cloud cover or dense cityscapes. The data suggests that for a consistent 4K experience, Medium is the most sensible choice, as it balances visual fidelity with performance.

For users with a 1440p monitor, the High preset is the sweet spot, delivering an average of 78 FPS. This is a solid frame rate that should feel smooth, and it maintains a high level of visual detail. The Ultra preset at 1440p still manages 74 FPS, which is playable, but the 5.4% improvement in FPS from dropping to High is not worth the visual downgrade, unless one prefers higher fidelity. At 1080p, the High preset offers 97 FPS, which is excellent, and even Ultra at 92 FPS is very smooth. The data indicates that at 1080p, the system has enough headroom to run Ultra comfortably, as the CPU is not bottlenecking the GPU.

The recommendation is to prioritize a stable frame rate over maximum visual fidelity, particularly in a simulation game where smooth camera movements are crucial. The data shows that the Medium preset at 4K provides the best balance of performance and quality for this specific hardware, as it offers a 40.0% higher average FPS than Ultra, while likely still looking significantly better than Low. For users who are sensitive to frame drops, the Medium preset is the safest choice, as the minimum FPS recorded is 65 at 4K, which is still above 60. This ensures that even in the most demanding moments, the game will not stutter.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset reveals a systematic progression of performance across all three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 166 FPS on Low, 129 FPS on Medium, 97 FPS on High, and 92 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset also records a minimum of 109 FPS and a maximum of 148 FPS, showing a tight frame time distribution. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 74 FPS, which is a 44.6% reduction in performance, indicating that the GPU is doing significantly more work at the higher preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS numbers are 133 for Low, 104 for Medium, 78 for High, and 74 for Ultra. The Medium preset at this resolution shows a minimum of 88 FPS and a maximum of 119 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across presets, with the Low preset seeing a 33 FPS reduction, the Medium preset a 25 FPS reduction, the High preset a 19 FPS reduction, and the Ultra preset an 18 FPS reduction. This pattern shows that the higher quality presets are already more GPU-bound at 1080p, so the resolution increase has a smaller absolute impact on them.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS figures are 98 for Low, 77 for Medium, 58 for High, and 55 for Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K records a minimum of 65 FPS and a maximum of 88 FPS. The transition from 1440p to 4K results in a 35 FPS drop for Low, a 27 FPS drop for Medium, a 20 FPS drop for High, and a 19 FPS drop for Ultra. The data shows that the absolute FPS loss is greater at lower settings, but the percentage loss is more uniform, hovering around 25-26%. This indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput is the primary constraint at 4K, and the quality preset only marginally affects the scaling efficiency.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: The benchmark data shows an average of 55 FPS at 3840x2160 resolution with the Ultra preset.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 166 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 92 FPS, making the Low preset 80.4% faster.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck at 1440p with High settings?

A: The data shows an average of 78 FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings. Given that the CPU has a high boost clock of 5.40 GHz and the GPU is a high-end mobile part, the results suggest a balanced load, but the GPU's rendering workload is likely the more significant constraint at this resolution and preset.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for the Medium preset at 4K?

A: The lowest frame rate recorded for the Medium preset at 3840x2160 is 65 FPS, with a maximum of 88 FPS.

Q: How does this CPU compare to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX in synthetic benchmarks?

A: According to the nearestRivals data, the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX has an average benchmark score that is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX.

Q: Does the system rank in the top 10% of tested combos?

A: No, the combo rank for this system is 815 out of 3714, which places it in the top 22% of tested combinations, not the top 10%.