Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator places unusual demands on a platform, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 with its integrated Radeon 8060S graphics presents a distinctive data set. The measured frames per second across resolutions and presets reveal a system that is consistently playable at lower settings but quickly becomes constrained as visual fidelity increases. This analysis examines the scaling behavior, component roles, and practical settings for this specific combination.

Resolution Scaling

The performance trajectory from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 shows a predictable decline, but the magnitude of the drop varies significantly by preset. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 111 FPS at 1080p to 89 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 22 FPS, and then to 66 FPS at 4K, another 23 FPS decline. This represents a 40% total reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is substantial but still leaves the game comfortably above 60 FPS at the highest resolution with the lowest preset.

The Medium preset exhibits a steeper relative drop. From 86 FPS at 1080p, the average falls to 69 FPS at 1440p (a 17 FPS decrease) and then to 51 FPS at 4K (an 18 FPS decrease). The total decline from 1080p to 4K is 35 FPS, or roughly 41%. Notably, the Medium preset at 4K is the only configuration with recorded minimum and maximum frame times: 44 FPS minimum and 59 FPS maximum, indicating some frame pacing variance at this setting.

High and Ultra presets show similar absolute declines. High settings drop from 65 FPS at 1080p to 52 FPS at 1440p, then to 39 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings fall from 62 FPS at 1080p to 50 FPS at 1440p, then to 37 FPS at 4K. The High preset loses 26 FPS from 1080p to 4K, while Ultra loses 25 FPS. Interestingly, the gap between High and Ultra at the same resolution is narrow: 3 FPS at 1080p, 2 FPS at 1440p, and 2 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the incremental cost of Ultra over High is relatively small, but both are heavily limited by the same underlying constraint.

The data indicates that resolution scaling is not uniform. At Low settings, the system retains enough headroom that even 4K remains fluid. At Medium and above, crossing from 1440p to 4K pushes average frame rates below 60 FPS, and at High and Ultra, 4K dips below 40 FPS. The pattern points to a scenario where the integrated GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth are the primary limiters at higher resolutions, rather than the CPU, which remains relatively underutilized in this simulation workload.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 8060S is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, sharing a 4 nm process node with the CPU. Its clock speeds are listed with a base of 1295 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz, which is a wide frequency range that allows the GPU to ramp up under load. The memory configuration is “System Shared,” meaning the GPU draws from the same LPDDR5X pool as the CPU, with bandwidth described as “System Dependent.” This dependency is critical: the CPU’s memory bandwidth is rated at 256.0 GB/s over a quad-channel interface, and the GPU’s performance is directly tied to that shared resource.

The GPU’s raw specifications include 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. It also features 40 ray tracing cores, which are relevant for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that can utilize ray-traced effects, though the measured data does not isolate ray tracing performance. The pixel rate is 185.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 464.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 compute at 14.85 TFLOPS. These figures place the GPU in a competitive position among integrated solutions, but the shared memory architecture introduces latency and bandwidth contention that discrete GPUs avoid.

In the context of the measured FPS, the GPU’s role becomes clearer. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 111 FPS, indicating the GPU can handle the geometry and texture loads of the lowest preset without breaking stride. As settings increase to Medium, the average drops to 86 FPS, and at High it falls to 65 FPS. The progression to Ultra at 62 FPS shows diminishing returns, suggesting that the GPU is nearing its saturation point. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the bottleneck: even Low settings only reach 66 FPS, and Ultra falls to 37 FPS. The shared memory bandwidth likely becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions, where larger framebuffers and more texture fetches compete with CPU data requests.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reinforce its positioning. It achieves an average benchmark score of 55757, which places it in the 87th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB with a score of 55698 (a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 with 56083 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X with 54828 (1.7% behind). These comparisons are notable because they include discrete GPUs, yet the integrated Radeon 8060S performs within a few percent of them in synthetic benchmarks. However, in real-world gaming, the shared memory and thermal constraints of an integrated package likely diminish this parity, as evidenced by the 4K results.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD Radeon 8060S ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all system configurations, roughly in the 43rd percentile of tested combos. This ranking is primarily driven by the GPU’s limitations at higher settings, as the CPU is a top-tier mobile part. The rank is not a reflection of poor performance per se, but rather the competitive field includes many discrete GPU configurations that have dedicated memory and higher power budgets.

The CPU’s benchmark percentile is 95, indicating it outperforms 95% of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 77740, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513, 1.6% lower), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492, 1.6% lower), the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097, 1.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76212, 2.0% lower). This CPU is clearly a high performer, but the combo rank of 1712 is dragged down by the GPU, which only sits in the 87th percentile.

The disparity between CPU and GPU capability is stark. A CPU that rivals desktop flagship parts is paired with an integrated GPU that, while strong for an iGPU, cannot match the sustained performance of a discrete card. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for being CPU-intensive in scenarios with heavy scenery and AI traffic, the CPU’s strength could theoretically shine. However, the measured data shows that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings, preventing the CPU from being fully utilized. The combo rank of 1712 suggests that many other systems, likely with weaker CPUs but stronger discrete GPUs, achieve higher frame rates in this specific game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s behavior. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are 111 FPS at Low, 86 FPS at Medium, 65 FPS at High, and 62 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset is the only 1080p configuration with recorded variance, showing a minimum of 73 FPS and maximum of 99 FPS, which is a 26 FPS spread. This suggests that the Medium preset introduces some scene-dependent load spikes, but the overall average remains high.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 89 FPS at Low, 69 FPS at Medium, 52 FPS at High, and 50 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 59 FPS and maximum of 80 FPS, a 21 FPS spread. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each preset is 22 FPS for Low, 17 FPS for Medium, 13 FPS for High, and 12 FPS for Ultra. The smaller absolute drops at higher presets indicate that the system is already constrained at 1080p High and Ultra, so the resolution increase has a proportionally smaller impact.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 66 FPS at Low, 51 FPS at Medium, 39 FPS at High, and 37 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 44 FPS and maximum of 59 FPS, a 15 FPS spread. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 23 FPS for Low, 18 FPS for Medium, 13 FPS for High, and 13 FPS for Ultra. The Low preset’s 23 FPS drop is the largest single-step decline in the entire data set, indicating that even at the lowest settings, 4K resolution demands a significant increase in GPU throughput.

Comparing presets at each resolution, the gap between Low and Ultra is 49 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 29 FPS at 4K. This narrowing gap suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so saturated that even dropping to Low cannot fully compensate for the pixel count increase. The data shows that the system is best suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming with medium settings, or 4K gaming with Low settings, if the user prioritizes frame rate over visual fidelity.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for maintaining 60 FPS or higher?

A: At 1920x1080, both Low (111 FPS) and Medium (86 FPS) presets exceed 60 FPS, while High (65 FPS) also stays above 60. At 2560x1440, only Low (89 FPS) and Medium (69 FPS) achieve 60 FPS or higher. At 3840x2160, only Low (66 FPS) reaches above 60 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when switching from 1080p to 4K?

A: The loss varies by preset. Low settings drop from 111 FPS to 66 FPS (40% reduction), Medium drops from 86 FPS to 51 FPS (41% reduction), High drops from 65 FPS to 39 FPS (40% reduction), and Ultra drops from 62 FPS to 37 FPS (40% reduction). The relative loss is consistent around 40% across all presets.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K Ultra?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 37, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The CPU has a 95th percentile benchmark ranking and scores 35314 in Cinebench R23 multicore, indicating it has ample headroom. The GPU’s shared memory architecture and lower compute throughput cannot keep up with the 4K workload.

Q: How does the Radeon 8060S compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Radeon 8060S has an average benchmark score of 55757. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (56083), and 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828). These deltas are all within 3%, showing close synthetic parity.

Q: What is the frame time variance at 1440p Medium?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 69, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. This 21 FPS spread indicates noticeable frame pacing variation, though the average remains playable.

Q: Does the High preset offer a meaningful improvement over Ultra?

A: The difference is minimal. At 1080p, High runs at 65 FPS while Ultra runs at 62 FPS, a 3 FPS gap. At 1440p, the gap is 2 FPS (52 vs 50), and at 4K, the gap is 2 FPS (39 vs 37). The performance gain from dropping from Ultra to High is negligible, suggesting the two presets have similar GPU demands.

Settings Recommendations

For users targeting a smooth experience at 60 FPS or higher, the data points to specific presets. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset provides an average of 86 FPS, which offers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and should handle most flight scenarios without dipping below playable rates. The High preset at 65 FPS is also viable, but the 21 FPS drop from Medium suggests that the additional visual fidelity comes at a significant cost. Ultra at 62 FPS is technically above 60, but the margin is thin and may be breached in dense scenery.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 69 FPS, which is the only preset other than Low to exceed 60 FPS. The Low preset at 89 FPS is smoother but sacrifices visual quality. For a balanced experience at 1440p, Medium is the recommended choice, as it maintains an average above 60 FPS while the minimum of 59 FPS suggests only occasional dips below the target. The High and Ultra presets at 52 and 50 FPS, respectively, are suboptimal for 60 FPS displays.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset achieves an average above 60 FPS at 66 FPS. The Medium preset at 51 FPS may be acceptable for users with variable refresh rate displays, but the minimum of 44 FPS indicates potential stutter. For 4K gaming, Low settings are the only way to maintain a consistently high frame rate. However, the 66 FPS average is still respectable for a flight simulator at 4K with an integrated GPU.

The overall recommendation is to prioritize Medium settings at 1080p or 1440p for the best balance of visual quality and performance. The step from Low to Medium at 1440p costs 20 FPS (from 89 to 69) but likely provides a substantial visual upgrade. The step from Medium to High costs 17 FPS (from 69 to 52), which is harder to justify. At 4K, users should accept Low settings or be prepared for frame rates in the 40-50 range with Medium.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a 55 W TDP that is modest for a 16-core part. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. This large L3 cache is beneficial for flight simulation, which often involves loading large terrain and aircraft data sets. The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel interface with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it is built on a 4 nm process node from TSMC.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates strong performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 35314, and single-core is 2044. Geekbench scores are 20992 multicore and 2464 single-core. Passmark results include a multithread score of 54934 and a single-thread score of 4147. These figures place the CPU in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900K, scores 79097, which is 1.7% higher, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX scores 76513, which is 1.6% lower.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, physics, AI traffic, and scenery streaming. The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution or setting. For instance, at 1080p Low, the system achieves 111 FPS, which is likely near the CPU’s frame generation limit for this game, but the GPU is still keeping up. At 4K Ultra, the 37 FPS average is clearly GPU-limited, as the CPU has plenty of headroom to feed the GPU more frames if it could render them. The CPU’s 16 cores and 32 threads are well-suited for the multithreaded nature of modern flight simulators, but the integrated GPU’s shared memory and limited compute resources prevent the CPU from reaching its full potential in this specific configuration.

The CPU’s high bandwidth memory interface (256.0 GB/s) is a double-edged sword. It provides the GPU with more bandwidth than typical integrated solutions, which explains why the 8060S can compete with discrete GPUs in synthetic tests. However, the shared nature of the memory means that CPU and GPU accesses contend for the same bandwidth, which can introduce latency spikes in heavy scenes. The data does not show explicit CPU bottlenecks, but the 4K Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 44 (compared to an average of 51) suggests that memory contention could be a factor in frame pacing. Overall, the CPU is a high-end mobile part that is underutilized in this game due to the GPU’s limitations, making the combo rank of 1712 a reflection of GPU-bound performance rather than CPU inadequacy.