Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination delivers a playable, though not exceptional, experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with performance heavily dictated by resolution and preset. The data indicates a clear GPU bottleneck at 4K, while lower resolutions reveal the substantial headroom provided by the 12-core processor.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 127 FPS, but this falls to 102 FPS at 1440p and 75 FPS at 4K. This represents a 41% reduction in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K on Low settings, indicating that the Radeon RX 6750 XT is the primary limiting factor as pixel count increases.

The scaling pattern shifts slightly with higher graphical presets. On High settings, the frame rate drops from 74 FPS at 1080p to 60 FPS at 1440p, then to 44 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is only 59% of the 1080p High figure, showing that the gap widens as the GPU works harder. The Ultra preset tells a similar story: 71 FPS at 1080p falls to 57 FPS at 1440p and bottoms out at 42 FPS in 4K. This 29 FPS spread between 1080p and 4K on Ultra is the largest absolute drop of any preset, confirming that the most demanding settings place the heaviest load on the graphics card.

The Medium preset provides the most complete dataset, including minimum and maximum frame rates. At 1080p Medium, the average is 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS and maximum of 113 FPS. Moving to 1440p Medium, the average drops to 79 FPS with a range of 68 to 91 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 59 FPS, with minimums and maximums of 50 and 67 FPS respectively. The 40 FPS difference between 1080p and 4K Medium averages reinforces that the GPU is the bottleneck, as the CPU has ample resources to spare at these settings.

What this scaling data suggests is that users targeting 4K will need to accept either Low settings for 75 FPS or Medium for 59 FPS, as the High and Ultra presets dip below the 45 FPS threshold at this resolution. At 1440p, the combo is more versatile, with Medium and High both clearing 60 FPS, while 1080p offers smooth performance across all presets.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor from the 9000 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture and codenamed Granite Ridge. It operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU's 128 MB of L3 cache is particularly relevant for flight simulation, where large world data sets benefit from substantial on-die storage.

Benchmark results place this processor in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores 55093, putting the AMD part just 0.6% behind. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D is 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K and 2.0% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6505P. These margins are narrow, indicating that the processor is competitive with top-tier alternatives in synthetic workloads.

In gaming-specific benchmarks, the CPU shows notable strength. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 47737 and single-core score of 6739 indicate strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance, both of which matter for Microsoft Flight Simulator's simulation and rendering threads. The Geekbench multicore score of 22884 and single-core score of 3041 further corroborate this capability. The PassMark multithread score of 56154 and single-thread score of 4646 round out a profile that suggests the CPU is far from being the limiting factor in this game.

The measured FPS data supports this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 127 FPS, which is a high frame rate but not indicative of a CPU bottleneck. If the processor were the constraint, we would expect to see larger frame rate differences between Low and Ultra settings at a given resolution. Instead, the differences are modest—for example, 127 FPS at 1080p Low versus 71 FPS at 1080p Ultra—which points to the GPU handling most of the graphical workload. The CPU's 12 cores and 24 threads provide ample headroom for the game's simulation logic, and the 4.40 GHz base clock ensures responsive single-thread performance where the game's main loop often operates.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1440p offers the best balance, with 79 FPS on Medium and 60 FPS on High, both above the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K, only Low and Medium presets exceed 50 FPS, while 1080p delivers 99 FPS on Medium but does not fully utilize the CPU's potential.

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen 9 9900X3D than its nearest rival?

A: The processor's average benchmark score is 54762, which is 0.6% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF at 55093, and 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K at 54053. It also leads the Intel Core i7-14700F by 2.1%.

Q: Is the RX 6750 XT strong enough for 4K gaming in this title?

A: At 4K, the combo achieves 75 FPS on Low and 59 FPS on Medium, but High drops to 44 FPS and Ultra to 42 FPS. The GPU can handle 4K, but only with reduced settings; the 12 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for the game's textures at this resolution.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average is 71 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Ultra preset. This is close to the 74 FPS recorded on High, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset at this resolution.

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

A: The Radeon RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26011, placing it 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R9 M395X and 0.6% above the AMD FirePro W7100. It is 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile.

Q: Does the CPU's cache size impact flight simulator performance?

A: The 128 MB of L3 cache is substantial, and the processor's 91st percentile ranking among CPUs suggests it has the resources to handle the game's streaming and simulation demands. The measured FPS at 1080p Low of 127 FPS indicates the CPU is not the bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1304 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 56.5th percentile of all combinations, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of the systems tested. While not a top-tier result, this ranking reflects a mid-pack position that is consistent with the GPU's 71st percentile ranking among all GPUs.

The CPU's 91st percentile ranking is significantly higher than the combo's overall rank, reinforcing that the graphics card is the limiting factor. The GPU's average benchmark score of 26011 is modest compared to the CPU's 54762, and the delta between these scores suggests that pairing this processor with a stronger GPU would yield better results in this game. The measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the combo hits 127 FPS, but this does not approach the limits of what the CPU could support with a more powerful graphics card.

The combo's rank of 1304 out of 2996 indicates that there are 1692 tested combinations that perform better. This is expected given the RX 6750 XT's position in the mid-range segment. The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD FirePro W7100, which are older or workstation-oriented parts, suggesting the RX 6750 XT is competitive within its class. The ranking also implies that users seeking higher frame rates would need to consider either lowering resolution or settings, as the data shows the CPU has headroom that the GPU cannot fully exploit at higher graphical loads.

Settings Recommendations

For 4K resolution, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it delivers an average of 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS. This is the only 4K option that stays above the 50 FPS minimum threshold while providing better visual quality than Low. The High and Ultra presets at 4K fall to 44 FPS and 42 FPS respectively, which are below the generally accepted 45 FPS minimum for smooth gameplay.

At 1440p, the High preset is the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, achieving 60 FPS average. The Medium preset offers 79 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS, which is smoother but reduces visual quality. The Ultra preset at 57 FPS is marginally below 60 FPS and may be acceptable for users who prioritize image quality over a strict 60 FPS target. The Low preset at 102 FPS is overkill for most displays and sacrifices too much visual detail.

For 1080p, the Ultra preset is viable, delivering 71 FPS average. The High preset at 74 FPS is nearly identical, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional settings have minimal impact on this configuration. The Medium preset at 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS offers the smoothest experience for high-refresh-rate monitors, though it does not maximize visual quality. The Low preset at 127 FPS is the fastest but is not recommended due to the significant graphical downgrade.

The overall recommendation is to use Medium settings at 4K or High settings at 1440p for the best experience. These configurations keep the frame rate above 60 FPS on average while maintaining acceptable visual quality. For users with 1080p displays, the Ultra preset is the recommended choice, as it provides the highest visual fidelity without compromising performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160 resolution, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 75 FPS, Medium produces 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS and maximum of 67 FPS, High produces 44 FPS, and Ultra produces 42 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 33 FPS, with the step from Low to Medium being the largest single drop at 16 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are higher across all presets. Low settings achieve 102 FPS, Medium achieves 79 FPS with a range of 68 to 91 FPS, High achieves 60 FPS, and Ultra achieves 57 FPS. The difference between Medium and High is 19 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, indicating diminishing returns from the highest preset.

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its strongest performance. Low settings deliver 127 FPS, Medium delivers 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS and maximum of 113 FPS, High delivers 74 FPS, and Ultra delivers 71 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 28 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 25 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are nearly identical, differing by only 3 FPS.

The data reveals that the Medium preset consistently provides the most balanced performance across all resolutions, with the largest dataset including minimum and maximum values. The Low preset offers the highest frame rates but sacrifices visual quality, while the High and Ultra presets show minimal differences, suggesting that the game's Ultra settings do not significantly increase the load on this particular GPU beyond the High preset. The 4K Ultra result of 42 FPS is the lowest measured value, and the 1080p Low result of 127 FPS is the highest, giving a total range of 85 FPS across all tested configurations.