Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator is steep and consistent across all settings, revealing a classic GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 111 FPS at 1920x1080 to 89 FPS at 2560x1440, a 20% reduction, and then to 66 FPS at 3840x2160, a further 26% drop from 1440p. This pattern is nearly identical at High settings, where the average slides from 65 FPS at 1080p to 52 FPS at 1440p and finally to 39 FPS at 4K. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings represents a 25% performance loss, while the same resolution step at Low settings costs 26% of the frame rate.

The consistency of these percentage losses across different quality presets is telling. When a component is fully saturated, resolution scaling tends to produce predictable, proportional frame rate changes, and that is exactly what the data shows here. At Medium settings, the average frame rate drops from 86 FPS at 1080p to 70 FPS at 1440p (a 19% loss) and then to 51 FPS at 4K (a 27% loss from 1440p). Ultra settings follow the same trajectory: 62 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 37 FPS at 4K, with the 1440p-to-4K step costing 26% of performance.

What this means is that the limiting component shifts as resolution increases. At 1080p, the frame rates are high enough that the CPU's strong single-thread performance can still feed the GPU adequately, but the GPU's capabilities begin to dominate as pixel count rises. The 4K results, which hover between 37 FPS at Ultra and 66 FPS at Low, indicate that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the primary constraint at this resolution. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are likely contributing factors, as Microsoft Flight Simulator's detailed terrain streaming and high-resolution textures place significant demands on memory capacity and throughput.

At 1080p, the picture is different. The 111 FPS Low result and the 62 FPS Ultra result show a spread of 49 FPS between the lowest and highest quality settings, which is a wider gap than at 4K (29 FPS between Low and Ultra). This wider spread at lower resolution suggests that the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, has enough headroom to let the GPU's workload scale with settings. At 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even dropping from Ultra to Low only recovers 29 FPS, indicating that the graphics card is the bottleneck regardless of quality preset.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER ranks 2138 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the 42nd percentile of all tested combinations, meaning roughly 58% of the tested combos deliver higher frame rates in this game. The ranking reflects a significant imbalance between the two components: the CPU is a top-tier part, while the GPU is a mid-range graphics card from an older generation.

The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 95, indicating it outperforms 95% of all processors in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 75779 places it just ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738, a 0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716, also 0.1% ahead). The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 trails at 75488, a 0.4% gap. This is an exceptionally fast processor, and its 128 MB of L3 cache and 16 cores with 32 threads provide ample compute resources for a flight simulator that can use multiple threads for terrain processing and physics.

In contrast, the GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is only 65, with an average benchmark score of 20282. It sits just behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480, a -1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, -1.2%), while the Intel Arc B570 (20556, -1.3%) and Intel Arc A750 (20582, -1.5%) are also closely matched. The RTX 2070 SUPER's 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 2560 shading units are respectable but firmly in the mid-range tier by today's standards.

The combo rank of 2138 out of 3714 is a direct consequence of this mismatch. The CPU is capable of pushing far higher frame rates than this GPU can deliver, especially at higher resolutions. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a significantly stronger GPU would produce much better results in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the measured frame rates are consistently GPU-limited in the 4K and 1440p tests.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the deciding factor in this combo's performance, and its specifications explain the measured results. The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams detailed terrain and aircraft models, this memory configuration is adequate for 1080p and 1440p but becomes strained at 4K with high-quality textures.

The GPU's clock speeds are 1605 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, with a pixel rate of 113.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 283.2 GTexel/s. These figures are moderate by current standards, and the measured frame rates reflect that. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces an average of 37 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that most users consider smooth for a flight simulator. At 4K High, the average improves to 39 FPS, still not a playable experience for most users.

The GPU's compute capabilities include 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, which are present but not heavily utilized in Microsoft Flight Simulator's traditional rendering pipeline. The FP32 performance of 9.062 TFLOPS is the key metric for this game's rasterization workload. The 12 nm process node and the 13,600 million transistor count on a 545 mm² die indicate an older architecture, and the 215 W TDP suggests this card runs hot under sustained load.

In terms of benchmark results, the GPU's PassMark G3D score of 18169 and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1651 place it in the mid-range tier. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 83358 and Vulkan score of 90637 show reasonable compute performance, but these numbers do not translate into high frame rates at demanding resolutions. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc B570 and Arc A750, are within 1.5% of its average benchmark score, confirming that the RTX 2070 SUPER is not an outlier in its performance class.

The measured FPS data shows that the GPU's limitations become most apparent at 4K. The gap between Low (66 FPS) and Ultra (37 FPS) at 4K is 29 FPS, while the same comparison at 1080p yields a 49 FPS gap. This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is running out of headroom, and the 8 GB memory capacity may be causing texture swapping or reduced streaming efficiency at 4K with Ultra settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 65 FPS on average, which is a smooth experience for a flight simulator. The Ultra preset drops to 62 FPS, a marginal 5% reduction, making Ultra a viable choice for users who prioritize visual fidelity over the small frame rate cost. For users seeking higher frame rates, the Medium preset at 86 FPS offers a substantial improvement over High, but the Low preset at 111 FPS may be unnecessarily aggressive in quality reduction for the frame rate gain.

At 2560x1440, the High preset produces 52 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a game where smooth panning and detailed terrain rendering matter. The Medium preset at 70 FPS is the sweet spot, providing a 35% improvement over High while maintaining reasonable visual quality. The Ultra preset at 50 FPS is marginally below High and not recommended, as it offers no meaningful frame rate advantage while demanding more from the GPU. The Low preset at 89 FPS is smooth but sacrifices too much visual detail for the resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The High preset averages 39 FPS, which is below the playability threshold for most users. The Medium preset at 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 FPS and maximum of 59 FPS is the best option for 4K, providing a 31% improvement over High. The Low preset at 66 FPS is the only setting that approaches smooth gameplay at 4K, but the visual compromise is significant. The Ultra preset at 37 FPS is the lowest measured result and should be avoided.

The data indicates that the Medium preset at 1440p and the Medium preset at 4K offer the best balance of frame rate and visual quality for this combo. At 1080p, High or Ultra are both acceptable, with the 3 FPS difference between them being negligible in practice. Users who prioritize frame rate over visuals should consider Low at any resolution, as it consistently delivers the highest FPS, but the quality loss is substantial.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates span three resolutions and four settings, providing a complete picture of this combo's performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the Low setting achieves an average of 111 FPS, the highest result in the entire dataset. The Medium setting averages 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 FPS and a maximum of 99 FPS, showing reasonable frame time consistency. The High setting averages 65 FPS, while the Ultra setting averages 62 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear progression: each step from Low to Ultra reduces the average frame rate by approximately 25 FPS, except for the High-to-Ultra step, which costs only 3 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low setting averages 89 FPS, a 20% reduction from the 1080p Low result. The Medium setting averages 70 FPS with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS, representing a 19% reduction from the 1080p Medium result. The High setting averages 52 FPS, a 20% reduction from 1080p High. The Ultra setting averages 50 FPS, a 19% reduction from 1080p Ultra. The consistent reduction percentages across settings confirm that the GPU is scaling predictably with resolution, and the 1440p results are generally playable at Medium and Low settings.

At 3840x2160, the Low setting averages 66 FPS, the only 4K result above 60 FPS. The Medium setting averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 FPS and a maximum of 59 FPS, showing a wider frame time variance than at lower resolutions. The High setting averages 39 FPS, while the Ultra setting averages 37 FPS, a negligible difference that suggests the GPU is fully saturated at these settings. The 4K results show a 26% reduction from 1440p at Low settings, a 27% reduction at Medium, a 25% reduction at High, and a 26% reduction at Ultra, again demonstrating consistent resolution scaling.

The Medium settings at each resolution include minimum and maximum FPS values, which are absent for the other presets. At 1080p Medium, the range is 73 to 99 FPS, a 26 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, the range is 59 to 80 FPS, a 21 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 44 to 59 FPS, a 15 FPS spread. This tightening of the frame time distribution at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is working closer to its limit, reducing the variance in frame delivery.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, and manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its base clock is 4.30 GHz with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, and it features 128 MB of L3 cache, which is substantial for a desktop processor. The CPU's 3DMark scores show strong scaling from 2 threads (2549) to 16 threads (16374) and max threads (17184), indicating excellent multi-threaded performance. The single-thread score of 1292 in 3DMark and 4737 in PassMark demonstrates strong per-core performance, which is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator's main thread.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 42018 in multicore and 2259 in single-core, while Geekbench reports 26736 multicore and 3064 single-core. These scores place the CPU in the top 5% of all processors (95th percentile), and its average benchmark score of 75779 is within 0.4% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75716). The CPU's 170 W TDP and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth are appropriate for a high-end desktop part, and its support for DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5 provides ample bandwidth for future GPU upgrades.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, including flight physics, weather systems, and terrain streaming. The 9950X3D's high single-thread performance is essential for maintaining frame rates at lower resolutions, where the GPU is not the bottleneck. The measured 111 FPS at 1080p Low suggests that the CPU is capable of driving frame rates well above what this GPU can deliver at higher resolutions. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 16374 and the max-thread score of 17184 indicate that the CPU can also handle multi-threaded tasks like terrain generation and AI traffic simulation.

However, the CPU's performance is not the limiting factor in this combo. The measured frame rates show that the GPU is the bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, as evidenced by the consistent resolution scaling patterns. The CPU's 128 MB of L3 cache and 16 cores are more than sufficient for this game, and the benchmark data suggests that the CPU would not constrain frame rates even with a much faster GPU. The PassMark multithread score of 70255 and the floating-point math score of 159724 further confirm the CPU's capability to handle the computational demands of a flight simulator.

The CPU's release date of 2025-01-05 and its launch MSRP of $699 indicate that this is a premium, current-generation part. Its 16 cores and 32 threads with a 5.70 GHz boost clock make it one of the fastest processors available, and its performance in synthetic benchmarks like Cinebench R23 (42018 multicore) and Geekbench (26736 multicore) confirms its top-tier status. In this combo, the CPU is clearly not the limiting component, and users would benefit more from upgrading the GPU than the processor to improve Microsoft Flight Simulator performance.