Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT presents a dataset dominated by the graphics card's limits. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings reveal a system where the CPU's substantial headroom is largely unused, as the GPU becomes the primary constraint. This analysis walks through the resolution scaling, component roles, and specific performance figures to characterize this pairing.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable and steep decline as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of GPU-bound performance. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 98 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same Low preset drops the average to 79 FPS, a reduction of 19 FPS. At 4K with Low settings, the average falls further to 59 FPS. This scaling pattern demonstrates that even at the lowest graphical load, the rendering pipeline is heavily taxed by the increase in pixel count.

The trend continues across all settings presets. For instance, at High settings, the average FPS goes from 58 at 1080p, to 46 at 1440p, and finally to 34 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings is 24 FPS, which represents a 41% reduction in performance. This consistent proportional decline with resolution is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario; if the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat or even increase at higher resolutions where the CPU has more time to prepare frames.

The data suggests that the limiting component at all tested resolutions and settings is the Radeon RX 5700 XT. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D, with its high core count and clock speeds, does not appear to be the constraining factor. The FPS drops are directly proportional to the workload increase on the GPU, which is the expected behavior when the graphics card is saturated. The 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS is particularly telling, as it shows the GPU struggling to maintain a playable frame rate even with the powerful CPU providing data.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the clear performance limiter in this configuration. Its specs, including 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a boost clock of 1905 MHz, are from the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The benchmark results show this GPU sits at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16361. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, and AMD Radeon PRO W7500, with delta percentages of 0.1%, -0.3%, and -0.3% respectively. This places the RX 5700 XT in a specific performance tier, and the Flight Simulator results align with that positioning.

The GPU's memory capacity of 8 GB is a critical factor in this game. At 4K resolution with High or Ultra settings, the demand for video memory likely exceeds what is available. The measured average FPS of 34 at 4K High and 33 at 4K Ultra indicates that the GPU is not only processing pixels but also potentially swapping data, leading to performance degradation. The gap between Low and Medium settings at 4K is 13 FPS (59 vs 46), while the gap between Medium and High is 12 FPS (46 vs 34). These sizable jumps suggest that each increase in detail level adds a significant load on the GPU's memory subsystem and compute units.

The GPU's compute capabilities, with 2560 shading units and a texture rate of 304.8 GTexel/s, are being fully utilized. The fact that the FPS scales almost linearly with resolution changes points to the GPU being the primary bottleneck. Even at 1080p Low, the 98 FPS average is not exceptionally high for a modern system, further indicating that the GPU's raw throughput is the ceiling. The data shows no evidence of the CPU holding back the GPU, as the FPS is highest at the lowest resolution and settings, which is where a CPU bottleneck would be most apparent if it existed.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a powerhouse that is largely underutilized in this specific pairing. With 16 cores and 32 threads, a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, and a large 128 MB L3 cache, its benchmark scores are formidable. It achieves a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75779. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and AMD EPYC 8224P, with delta percentages of 0.1%, 0.1%, and 0.3% respectively. This CPU has ample headroom to feed even the most demanding GPUs.

However, in this configuration, the CPU's role is to supply data to the RX 5700 XT, which it does without breaking a sweat. The FPS data shows no signs of a CPU bottleneck. For example, at 1080p Low, the system produces 98 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 55 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would be similar regardless of the graphics settings, as the CPU's workload would be the same. The fact that FPS changes drastically with settings proves that the GPU is the bottleneck, and the CPU is waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame.

The CPU's single-thread performance, as indicated by a 3dmark single-thread score of 1292 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2259, is more than sufficient for a flight simulator that often relies on strong single-core performance for simulation logic. The high boost clock of 5.70 GHz ensures that the game's main thread has the processing power it needs. Yet, the measured FPS never exceeds 98, which is a modest figure for such a capable CPU. This confirms that the CPU's performance is not the constraint; the GPU is simply unable to translate the CPU's speed into higher frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and the RX 5700 XT ranks 2745 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 26% of all possible pairings. This ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU's modest performance relative to the CPU. The combo's rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's 59th percentile standing, rather than the CPU's 95th percentile, because the game's performance is limited by the graphics card.

This ranking highlights a significant imbalance. The CPU is capable of much higher frame rates, but it is paired with a GPU that cannot deliver them. The data shows that while the CPU is in the top 5% of all processors, the combo's performance is dragged down by a GPU that is in the 59th percentile. This is a classic case of a bottleneck, where the slower component dictates the overall system performance. The 2745th rank out of 3714 suggests that there are many other combinations that would perform better in this game, likely those with a more balanced CPU-GPU pairing.

In practical terms, this rank means that for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific combo is not a top performer. The system will be able to run the game, but not at the highest settings or resolutions with high frame rates. The data suggests that users with this combo would need to lower settings or resolution to achieve a smoother experience, as the GPU cannot handle the load at higher presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo can achieve at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 98, which is achieved with the Low settings preset.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 59 at Low settings to 33 at Ultra settings, with Medium at 46 and High at 34.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as FPS drops significantly with increased resolution and settings, which would not happen if the CPU were the bottleneck.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the GPU in this combo?

A: The GPU's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M with a 0.1% delta, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell with a -0.3% delta, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 with a -0.3% delta.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2745 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What is the average FPS at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 62, with a minimum of 52 and a maximum of 71.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo depends on the user's target resolution. For a smooth 60 FPS experience, the Low preset is the only option that consistently delivers above that threshold. At 1080p Low, the average is 98 FPS, and at 1440p Low, it is 79 FPS. Even at 4K Low, the average is 59 FPS, which is close to 60.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the Medium preset offers a balanced experience. At 1080p Medium, the average is 77 FPS, which is still quite smooth. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 62 FPS, which is acceptable for a flight simulator. However, at 4K Medium, the average drops to 46 FPS, which may feel less fluid.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended for this combo. At 1080p High, the average is 58 FPS, and at Ultra, it is 55 FPS. These frame rates are below the 60 FPS target and may result in a less responsive experience. At 1440p High and Ultra, the averages are 46 and 44 FPS respectively, which are suboptimal. At 4K High and Ultra, the averages are 34 and 33 FPS, which are too low for a comfortable experience. The data suggests that users should stick to Low or Medium settings to maintain playable frame rates, with Medium at 1080p or 1440p being the sweet spot for balancing visuals and performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details all measured FPS data from the FACT PACK, showing the exact average, minimum, and maximum FPS for each resolution and settings combination.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 34 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 59 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 46 | 39 | 52 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 33 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | High | 46 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 79 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 62 | 52 | 71 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 44 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | High | 58 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 98 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 77 | 65 | 88 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 55 | - | - |

The minimum and maximum FPS are only provided for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the FPS fluctuates between 65 and 88. At 1440p Medium, it fluctuates between 52 and 71. At 4K Medium, it fluctuates between 39 and 52. This data shows that the Medium preset has a noticeable variance in frame times, which could be perceived as stuttering in a flight simulator where smoothness is important. The Low preset, while having no min/max data, likely provides a more stable experience given the higher average FPS and lower GPU load.