Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a notoriously demanding title, and the data for this specific combination—the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the AMD Radeon 760M integrated graphics—paints a clear picture of a system that is fundamentally constrained by its graphical capabilities. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings are exceptionally low, placing this combo near the very bottom of the database rankings. This is not a configuration for serious flight simulation at playable frame rates; rather, the data shows a system that will struggle to maintain a smooth experience even at the lowest settings.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a high-end mobile processor featuring 16 cores and 32 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process. Its base clock is 3.00 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.10 GHz. The processor has a 64 MB shared L3 cache and supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory, with a substantial memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU performs exceptionally well, scoring 35,314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,044 in single-core. Its average benchmark score of 77,740 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that the processor itself is a top-tier performer.

However, the benchmark results for this game reveal a massive disconnect between the CPU's theoretical capability and the actual in-game performance. Even a powerful CPU like this cannot overcome the limitations of the integrated GPU. The data shows that the processor is likely not the bottleneck in this scenario. For instance, at 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 34 FPS, which is the highest score in the measured set. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates scale more significantly with resolution changes. Instead, the frame rates are uniformly low, pointing directly to the GPU as the primary constraint. The CPU's role here is to feed the GPU with data, and it is doing so, but the Radeon 760M simply cannot render the complex scenery of Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable speed. The processor's high single-thread performance is a strong asset for a flight simulator, which often relies on a single primary simulation thread, but it is being completely held back by the graphics subsystem. The data indicates a massive mismatch; the CPU is a top-5% performer, while the GPU is in the 35th percentile, leading to a system where the weakest link dictates the entire experience.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded in the data is 34 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only setting that approaches a playable level, though it is still below the 60 FPS target most players prefer.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to the Intel Core i9-14900K?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77,740. The Intel Core i9-14900K has a score of 79,097, which is 1.7% higher. This makes the two processors very close in overall performance, with the Intel chip holding a slight edge.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 760M a capable graphics solution for this game?

A: The data suggests it is not. The GPU's benchmark score is 5,310, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. In-game, this translates to a maximum average of 34 FPS at 1080p Low. Performance degrades quickly at higher resolutions and settings, with 4K Ultra producing an average of only 11 FPS. The GPU is clearly the primary bottleneck in this system.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields an average of 28 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields an average of 15 FPS. This represents a 46.4% drop in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality settings, highlighting the significant cost of the Ultra preset on this integrated GPU.

Q: What is the combo's ranking among all tested combinations for this game?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 2,989 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 0.2nd percentile of all systems, indicating that almost every other tested combination performs better.

Q: Does the Radeon 760M perform better or worse than the NVIDIA Quadro P2000?

A: The average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon 760M is 6,019. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an average score of 6,049, which is 0.5% higher. This makes the two GPUs nearly identical in synthetic benchmarks, though the data for this game was measured specifically for the 760M.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data provides a textbook example of a GPU-bound scenario. As the resolution increases, the frame rate drops in a manner that is directly proportional to the increase in pixel count, which is the hallmark of a graphics card operating at its absolute limit. Starting at 1080p with Low settings, the system produces an average of 34 FPS. When we move to 1440p at the same Low settings, the average drops to 28 FPS, a decrease of 17.6%. This is a significant drop, but the most dramatic decline occurs when moving to 4K. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average frame rate falls to 20 FPS, which is a 41.2% reduction from the 1440p figure and a 41.2% reduction from the 1080p figure.

This pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For example, at Medium settings, the frame rate goes from 27 FPS at 1080p, to 22 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 16 FPS at 4K. The 4K resolution has roughly four times the pixels of 1080p, and the frame rate at 4K is roughly half of the 1080p score. While not a perfect 1:1 scaling, this trend strongly suggests that the GPU is being overwhelmed by the pixel fill rate requirements. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see less of a performance penalty when increasing the resolution, as the CPU's workload would remain relatively constant. The fact that the frame rate degrades so steeply with resolution confirms that the AMD Radeon 760M's rendering capabilities are the limiting factor, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for this fundamental hardware limitation.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The data is unequivocal regarding this combo's standing. It ranks 2,989 out of 2,996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 0.2% of all systems tested, a position that signals a fundamentally unsuitable hardware pairing for this specific game. The CPU is a top-tier performer, sitting in the 95th percentile of all processors. However, the GPU is a low-end integrated solution, resting in the 35th percentile. The combination of a very fast CPU with a very slow GPU results in a system that performs far worse than its individual components might suggest.

This ranking is not a measure of the CPU's capability, but rather a measure of the entire system's gameplay experience. The data shows that this is a severely imbalanced configuration. The CPU's immense power is effectively wasted, as it cannot be utilized due to the GPU's inability to render frames quickly enough. The combo's rank of 2,989 out of 2,996 means that for the vast majority of users, almost any other system would provide a better experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a critical piece of information for anyone considering a build with this processor but planning to rely solely on its integrated graphics for gaming. The synthetic benchmarks for the CPU are impressive, but they do not translate into playable frame rates in this simulation.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Given the measured data, the only viable settings for this system is the Low preset at 1920x1080 resolution. This is the only configuration that yields an average frame rate above 30 FPS, hitting 34 FPS. While 34 FPS is not ideal for a smooth experience, it is the only setting that provides a minimally acceptable level of performance for a game like this. All other settings and resolutions produce average frame rates in the teens or low twenties, which would be a stuttery and unplayable mess.

The Medium preset at 1080p produces 27 FPS, which is a noticeable step down from the Low preset. The High preset at 1080p drops further to 20 FPS. At higher resolutions, the performance is even more severely compromised. The Ultra preset, at any resolution, is completely out of the question, with scores ranging from 11 to 19 FPS. Therefore, the recommendation is clear: for any semblance of a playable experience, users must set the resolution to 1920x1080 and the graphics preset to Low. It is also notably even the Low preset at 1080p is not a smooth 60 FPS experience, so users should expect to make significant compromises on visual fidelity to achieve even this level of performance. The data suggests that for a better experience, one would need to consider a system with a discrete GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table breaks down the exact average, minimum, and maximum frame rates as measured for this combination.

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

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

| 1920x1080 | Low | 34 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 27 | 23 | 31 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 20 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 19 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 28 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 22 | 18 | 25 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 16 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 15 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 20 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 16 | 13 | 18 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 12 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 11 | - | - |

The data shows a clear and consistent pattern. The best-case scenario is the 1080p Low preset, which delivers an average of 34 FPS. From there, performance degrades consistently as either the resolution or the settings are increased. The 4K Ultra preset is the worst-case scenario, producing an average of only 11 FPS. The minimum FPS data, available only for the Medium preset, shows that even that setting can dip to 13 FPS at 4K and 18 FPS at 1440p, indicating that the frame pacing is likely erratic and contributes to a poor experience. In summary, the measured FPS values confirm that this combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator beyond the most basic settings, and even then, the performance is marginal.