Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured framerates for Microsoft Flight Simulator across the three tested resolutions reveal a clear and predictable scaling pattern, with the most dramatic shift occurring between 1080p and 1440p. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER delivers 117 FPS average. Moving to 1440p drops that to 94 FPS, a reduction of approximately 19.7%. The jump to 4K is less severe in relative terms, with the Ultra preset falling from 94 FPS at 1440p to 69 FPS at 4K, a further 26.6% decline. This pattern indicates that while the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor at higher resolutions, the CPU still has significant headroom to feed the frame pipeline, even at 4K Ultra.

The most telling data point for understanding the system's balance comes from the Medium preset, which is the only setting tier with reported minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the average is 163 FPS, with a minimum of 138 FPS and a maximum of 187 FPS. Scaling to 1440p Medium, the average drops to 131 FPS (a 19.6% decrease), with a minimum of 112 FPS and a maximum of 151 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 97 FPS, with a minimum of 82 FPS and a maximum of 111 FPS. The consistency of the percentage drops across resolution steps (roughly 20% for each step from 1080p to 4K) suggests a well-balanced system where neither the CPU nor GPU is creating a severe bottleneck at these settings.

However, the scaling behavior changes when comparing the Low preset across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves a massive 209 FPS average. This drops to 169 FPS at 1440p Low (a 19.1% reduction) and then to 125 FPS at 4K Low (a 26.0% reduction from 1440p). The larger percentage drop from 1440p to 4K at Low settings, compared to the Medium preset, suggests that the GPU is starting to hit a more substantial performance wall when the CPU overhead is reduced. The data indicates that at 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the primary limiter, as the frame rate is exceptionally high, but as resolution increases, the GPU's fill rate and shading capabilities become the dominant constraint.

For High settings, the scaling is linear and steep. The system produces 123 FPS at 1080p, which drops to 99 FPS at 1440p (a 19.5% decline) and then to 73 FPS at 4K (a 26.3% decline from 1440p). This consistent scaling across all presets except Low suggests that the game's rendering workload at higher quality settings is well-distributed between the CPU and GPU. The 4K High result of 73 FPS is notably close to the 4K Ultra result of 69 FPS, indicating that the gap between High and Ultra at 4K is relatively small (5.5%), which is a useful consideration for players seeking to maximize visual fidelity without a massive performance penalty.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the driving force behind the frame rates at higher resolutions, and its specifications explain the observed scaling patterns. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, the card offers a memory bandwidth of 736.3 GB/s. This is critical for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and texture data. The 16 GB capacity is ample for 4K Ultra settings, as evidenced by the playable 69 FPS average, indicating that the GPU is not running out of memory and causing texture thrashing or stuttering.

The GPU's clock speeds are also relevant to its performance. The base clock is 2295 MHz, with a boost clock of 2550 MHz. The memory runs at 1438 MHz, which translates to 23 Gbps effective. These clocks, combined with the 10240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 112 raster output units, allow the card to maintain high throughput. The pixel rate of 285.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 816.0 GTexel/s are substantial, but the data shows that even this powerful GPU cannot maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra in Flight Simulator, a signal of the game's demanding rendering engine.

The RTX 4080 SUPER's compute capabilities are also notable. It delivers 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 52.22 TFLOPS for FP16 (1:1 ratio). This raw compute power is what enables the complex lighting, shadow, and physics calculations that Flight Simulator requires. The card's percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 86, placing it well above the median, and its average benchmark score is 54209. In the context of its nearest rivals, the RTX 4080 SUPER scores nearly identically to the standard RTX 4080, with a deltaPct of -0.1%, meaning it is essentially tied with its non-SUPER predecessor in synthetic benchmarks.

The data suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS is 69. The gap between 4K High (73 FPS) and 4K Ultra (69 FPS) is small, suggesting that the card is approaching its limit in shader and pixel work. Conversely, at 1080p Low, the 209 FPS average is likely constrained by the CPU, as the GPU has ample headroom to render frames faster if the CPU could feed it more data. The GPU's role is therefore dynamic: it is the limiting factor at high resolutions, but its extensive resources are underutilized at lower resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the context of the benchmark database, this specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER achieves a combo rank of 180 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the top 6.0% of all tested combos, which is a strong result for a high-end pairing. The rank indicates that while this is not the absolute fastest configuration for this simulator, it is significantly above average and will provide a smooth experience for most users.

The ranking is driven by the strengths of both components. The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 91, and its average benchmark score is 54762. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores 55093, which is only 0.6% higher, indicating that the Ryzen 9 9900X3D is competitive with the best mid-range and high-end chips. The GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 86, with an average score of 54209, and its nearest rival, the RTX 4080, scores 54247, a negligible 0.1% difference. This means the combo's rank is not held back by an unusually weak component, but rather reflects the inherent performance ceiling of these parts in this specific game.

The combo rank of 180 out of 2996 is particularly impressive given Flight Simulator's reputation for being exceptionally demanding on both CPU and GPU. The data shows that this pairing can handle 4K Ultra at 69 FPS, which is a playable frame rate for a simulation title where smoothness is less critical than in fast-paced shooters. The rank also suggests that there are only 179 other combinations that deliver better performance, which likely include more expensive GPUs like the RTX 4090 or newer generation cards. For users with this specific hardware, the benchmark data confirms that they are near the top of the performance curve for this title, with only a small fraction of systems able to deliver higher frame rates.

FAQ

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

A: The average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 69 FPS.

Q: How does the 1080p Low preset compare to the 1080p Ultra preset?

A: At 1080p Low, the system achieves an average of 209 FPS, which is significantly higher than the 117 FPS average seen at 1080p Ultra.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck at 1080p Low?

A: At 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the primary limiter, as the 209 FPS average is exceptionally high and indicates the GPU has more headroom to render frames if the CPU could provide more data.

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

A: The minimum FPS recorded at 3840x2160 with Medium settings is 82 FPS, with an average of 97 FPS and a maximum of 111 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems for this game?

A: This combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER ranks 180th out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between 1440p High and 4K High?

A: The average FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings is 99 FPS, while at 3840x2160 with High settings it drops to 73 FPS.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D plays a crucial role in maintaining high frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. This processor features 12 cores and 24 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The substantial 128 MB of L3 cache is a defining feature of the X3D series and is highly beneficial for gaming, as it reduces latency when accessing frequently used data. The processor's benchmark scores reinforce its strength: it achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 47737 and a single-core score of 6739, indicating excellent performance in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads.

The CPU's performance is critical in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its complex simulation logic that can be heavily single-threaded. The single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 (6739 points) and Geekbench single-core (3041 points), ensures that the game's main simulation thread is processed quickly. The multi-thread capabilities, demonstrated by a Geekbench multicore score of 22884, also help with background tasks and scenery generation. The 3DMark 16-thread test score of 12490 and the max-thread score of 13795 show strong scaling, though the diminishing returns between these scores suggest that not all 24 threads are always fully utilized.

The CPU's impact on the measured FPS is most evident when examining the Low settings across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 209 FPS, which is 72.7% higher than the 4K Low result of 125 FPS. This gap is primarily due to the CPU's ability to process game logic faster than the GPU can render at higher resolutions. The data implies that at 1080p Low, the CPU is the limiting factor, and the GPU is waiting for the CPU to send draw calls. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D's high clock speeds and large cache help mitigate this bottleneck, but even the fastest CPUs have limits in this simulator.

The CPU's 120W TDP and 4nm process node make it an efficient performer, and its compatibility with DDR5 memory (dual-channel, 89.6 GB/s bandwidth) ensures that memory bandwidth is not a limiting factor. The processor's percentile versus all CPUs is 91, placing it in the top 9% of all chips tested. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, scores 55093 in average benchmarks, a mere 0.6% higher, confirming that the Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a top-tier gaming CPU. In the context of this game, the CPU's role is to provide a stable foundation for the GPU to do its work, and the data shows that it excels at this, enabling high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p without stuttering.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware combination depend heavily on the user's resolution and frame rate preferences. For users with a 1080p display, the High preset provides an excellent balance, delivering 123 FPS average. This is a substantial improvement over the Ultra preset (117 FPS) in terms of frame rate, while the visual difference between High and Ultra is often subtle. However, for those who prioritize maximum smoothness and have a high-refresh-rate monitor, the Medium preset at 1080p offers 163 FPS average, which is likely to be well above the refresh rate of most displays, ensuring a fluid experience. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 209 FPS, but this is likely overkill for most displays and comes at a significant visual cost.

At 1440p, the High preset is recommended for a balanced experience, providing 99 FPS average. This is a good target for 144Hz monitors, and the visual quality will be high. The Ultra preset at 1440p drops to 94 FPS, which is still playable but may not fully utilize a 144Hz display's potential. For users who prefer a higher frame rate, the Medium preset at 1440p delivers 131 FPS, which is an excellent choice for competitive or fast-paced play, though it sacrifices some visual fidelity compared to High. The data shows that the step from Medium to High at 1440p costs 32 FPS (from 131 to 99), which is a significant drop, but the visual improvement may be worth it for many.

For 4K gaming, the situation is more constrained. The Ultra preset is playable at 69 FPS average, which is acceptable for a simulation game, but the High preset offers a slightly better experience at 73 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 4 FPS, so unless the user is particularly sensitive to the extra visual details, High is the more sensible choice. The Medium preset at 4K provides 97 FPS average, which is significantly smoother and may be the best option for users with 4K 120Hz displays. Given the data, the Medium preset at 4K appears to offer the best trade-off between visual quality and performance, as the jump from Medium to High at 4K results in a 24 FPS loss (from 97 to 73), which is a substantial sacrifice for what is often a marginal visual gain. Ultimately, for the best overall experience, the Medium preset at 1440p or 4K offers the most balanced performance, while High at 1080p is ideal for high-refresh-rate gaming.