Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents an unusual scaling pattern with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination. The data set shows a clear progression where average frame rates decline as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that decline varies significantly depending on the quality preset selected. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 reduces the average from 127 FPS to 75 FPS, a drop of 52 FPS. At Ultra settings, the same resolution change moves the average from 71 FPS down to 42 FPS, a smaller absolute drop of 29 FPS. This divergence indicates that at lower presets, the frame rate is more elastic — the workload scales heavily with pixel count — while at higher presets, other factors begin to constrain performance more evenly across resolutions.

The Medium preset offers the most complete data, with minimum and maximum frame rates recorded at each resolution. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 99 FPS with a range from 84 to 113 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Medium, the average falls to 79 FPS, with a range from 68 to 91 FPS. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average drops further to 59 FPS, spanning 50 to 67 FPS. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium is roughly 40%, which is substantial but not as steep as the roughly 41% drop seen at Low (from 127 to 75 FPS). The High and Ultra presets show smaller relative declines from 1080p to 4K: High goes from 74 to 44 FPS (about 41% reduction), while Ultra goes from 71 to 42 FPS (about 41% reduction). Interestingly, the absolute FPS values at High and Ultra are very close at each resolution, suggesting that beyond a certain quality threshold, the additional settings in Ultra do not translate into proportional performance costs.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior points toward the GPU being the primary limiting component in most scenarios, but with a nuance at lower presets. At Low settings, the jump from 1080p to 1440p yields a 25 FPS drop (from 127 to 102 FPS), and the jump from 1440p to 4K yields another 27 FPS drop (from 102 to 75 FPS). This near-linear scaling with pixel count — 1080p has about 2.1 million pixels, 1440p about 3.7 million, and 4K about 8.3 million — suggests the RX 6750 XT is working hard even at Low, and the frame rate is responding directly to the rendering load. At Ultra settings, the scaling is less dramatic in absolute terms: 1080p to 1440p drops from 71 to 57 FPS (14 FPS), and 1440p to 4K drops from 57 to 42 FPS (15 FPS). The fact that the Ultra preset at 1080p (71 FPS) is only slightly below the Medium preset at 1440p (79 FPS) indicates that the GPU is nearing a throughput ceiling where adding pixels or adding quality settings both push against the same hardware limit.

At 4K resolution, the spread between Low (75 FPS) and Ultra (42 FPS) is 33 FPS, while at 1080p, that same spread is 56 FPS (from 127 to 71). This compression at higher resolutions is a classic sign of GPU-bound operation — when the pixel fill rate becomes the bottleneck, the relative cost of different quality settings shrinks because the shader work per pixel is already overwhelming the hardware. The Medium preset at 4K, with its minimum of 50 FPS and average of 59 FPS, represents the most playable high-resolution option in the data, since it stays above the 50 FPS threshold while offering more visual fidelity than Low.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D brings substantial processing resources to this combination, with 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture. The CPU's base clock is 4.30 GHz with a boost up to 5.70 GHz, and it carries 128 MB of L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42018 and a single-core score of 2259, along with a Geekbench multicore score of 26736 and single-core score of 3064. These numbers place the CPU in the 95th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75779. The nearest rivals are extremely close: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738 (0.1% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D scores 75716 (0.1% lower), the AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75582 (0.3% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75488 (0.4% lower).

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the CPU's single-core performance is likely relevant. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 350 and the 3DMark single-thread score of 1292 suggest strong per-core capability. However, the measured frame rates in this game do not show signs of CPU limitation at lower resolutions — at 1080p Low, the system reaches 127 FPS, which is high but not extreme. The data indicates that even with this powerful CPU, the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops when moving from 1080p to 4K. The CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads are more than sufficient for the game's threading model; the benchmark results show the CPU is not a bottleneck in any of the measured configurations, since frame rates scale consistently with resolution and settings rather than plateauing at a CPU-imposed ceiling.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT achieves a rank of 1674 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the upper half of all tested systems, at roughly the 55th percentile of the combo distribution. The ranking reflects the balance between a top-tier CPU and a mid-range GPU from the Radeon RX 6000 series. The GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 71, meaning it outperforms most graphics cards in general benchmarks, but its average benchmark score of 26011 is modest compared to the CPU's commanding 95th percentile position. The combo rank of 1674 suggests that in this game, the GPU holds back the overall result — a more powerful GPU paired with this CPU would likely achieve a higher rank, while the CPU alone would rank near the top.

The nearest GPU rivals in synthetic tests are the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (score 25891, 0.5% lower), AMD FirePro W7100 (25856, 0.6% lower), AMD FirePro D700 (25842, 0.7% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740, 1.1% lower). These are all substantially older or mobile parts, indicating that the RX 6750 XT's synthetic performance is competitive with higher-tier products from previous generations. Yet in this game's measured FPS, the combo sits in the middle of the pack because the GPU's 12 GB of VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate but not exceptional for the demands of a flight simulator that renders vast landscapes and detailed cockpits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture across three resolutions and four quality settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 127 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in the entire data set. Medium at 1080p averages 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 113. High at 1080p averages 74 FPS, and Ultra averages 71 FPS. The 1080p results show a wide spread of 56 FPS between Low and Ultra, indicating that the GPU has headroom at this resolution to absorb quality increases. The fact that High (74 FPS) and Ultra (71 FPS) are only 3 FPS apart suggests that the Ultra preset adds features that are not heavily taxing in this scenario, or that the GPU is beginning to hit a compute limit.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 102 FPS, Medium 79 FPS (range 68 to 91), High 60 FPS, and Ultra 57 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 23 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS, mirroring the pattern seen at 1080p. The 1440p results show that even at Medium, the system maintains a playable 79 FPS average, which is above the 60 FPS target most users would consider smooth. At 3840x2160, Low averages 75 FPS, Medium 59 FPS (range 50 to 67), High 44 FPS, and Ultra 42 FPS. The 4K results are the most demanding, and the data shows that only the Low preset stays comfortably above 60 FPS, while Medium sits just below at 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 22 chip fabricated on a 7 nm process. It features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines, along with 40 ray tracing cores. The GPU's base clock is 2150 MHz with a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and the memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a key specification for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams large terrain textures. The GPU's pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate is 416.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU scores 20700 in Passmark G3D and 2548 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 16360 and Vulkan score of 98089. These numbers place it in the 71st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26011. The measured game performance suggests that the GPU's 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for the tested settings, since no out-of-memory issues would be expected at 4K with these presets. The consistent FPS drops as resolution increases — from 127 FPS at 1080p Low to 75 FPS at 4K Low — indicate that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints. The boost clock of 2600 MHz and game clock of 2495 MHz show that the GPU is designed to sustain high frequencies, but the 250 W TDP and dual-slot cooler suggest it operates within a moderate power envelope.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance across all three resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS, which is well above any playability threshold. At 2560x1440, Medium averages 79 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS, maintaining smooth gameplay. At 3840x2160, Medium averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS, which is borderline but acceptable for a flight simulator where frame pacing is less critical than in fast-paced action games. The Medium preset consistently provides roughly 20-30 FPS more than High or Ultra at the same resolution, while the visual difference between Medium and High is typically less impactful in flight sims than in other genres.

For users prioritizing maximum frame rates, the Low preset at 1440p (102 FPS) or 1080p (127 FPS) is the clear choice, though it sacrifices significant visual fidelity. The High preset at 1440p (60 FPS) is the minimum recommended for a smooth experience, while High at 4K (44 FPS) and Ultra at 4K (42 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold and should only be used if visual fidelity takes precedence over smoothness. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage over High in the measured data — at 1080p the difference is only 3 FPS, at 1440p it is 3 FPS, and at 4K it is 2 FPS — so users should stick with High if they want the best visuals without the extra performance cost.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combination?

A: The highest average FPS in the measured data is 127 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset.

Q: Can this system maintain 60 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: At 4K, only the Low preset exceeds 60 FPS with an average of 75 FPS. The Medium preset averages 59 FPS, while High and Ultra average 44 and 42 FPS respectively.

Q: How much performance difference is there between High and Ultra settings?

A: The difference is minimal. At 1080p, High averages 74 FPS and Ultra averages 71 FPS (3 FPS difference). At 1440p, High averages 60 FPS and Ultra averages 57 FPS (3 FPS difference). At 4K, High averages 44 FPS and Ultra averages 42 FPS (2 FPS difference).

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: This combination ranks 1674 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the upper half of all tested systems.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 26011, with the closest rival being the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25891 (0.5% lower). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 25740, which is 1.1% lower.

Q: At which resolution does the Medium preset provide the best experience?

A: At 2560x1440, the Medium preset delivers 79 FPS average with a minimum of 68 FPS, offering a good balance of visual quality and smooth performance. At 4K, Medium drops to 59 FPS average, which is still playable but closer to the lower bound.