Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 with the AMD Radeon 890M integrated graphics paint a clear picture of its capabilities. The data indicates that this combination is not designed for high-refresh-rate gaming, but rather for achieving playable, if modest, frame rates at lower resolutions and settings. The measured FPS across all configurations places this combo at rank 2829 out of 2996 tested combinations, showing that while it functions, it sits near the lower end of the performance spectrum for this specific simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator is severe and clearly illustrates that the integrated GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in the entire dataset. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 40 FPS, a 20% decrease. At 4K Low, the average falls to 30 FPS, which is a 40% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern shows that even at the lowest graphical preset, the rendering load at higher resolutions quickly overwhelms the Radeon 890M.

The trend becomes even more pronounced at higher settings. At Medium settings, the averages are 39 FPS at 1080p, 31 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K Medium is a 41% performance loss. At High settings, the averages are 29 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and a barely playable 17 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the most punishing, with averages of 28 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K. The consistent pattern across all presets confirms that resolution scaling is a linear and brutal penalty for this hardware, with no setting combination able to mitigate the loss of pixel throughput at 4K.

The data suggests that the system is almost entirely GPU-limited. The CPU, with its 16 cores and 32 threads, does not show signs of being the constraining factor in these tests. The frame rate drops are directly proportional to the increase in pixel count, which is a classic symptom of a GPU that has run out of fill rate and shading power. For users hoping to play at 4K, the results are clear: even the lowest settings yield only 30 FPS, which is not a smooth experience for a flight simulator where precise control is important. The playable range for this combo is firmly in 1080p territory, with 1440p being a stretch only at Low settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process. Its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as measured, is modest and places it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The integrated nature of the chip means it shares system memory, and its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which can be a significant drawback in a game as data-intensive as this simulator. The GPU's boost clock is rated at 2900 MHz, but the thermal and power constraints of an IGP often prevent it from sustaining that speed under heavy load.

The benchmark scores for the Radeon 890M are telling. Its Passmark G3D score is 8076, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 590. These are low scores that align with its 45th percentile ranking. In comparison to its nearest rivals, the data shows it performs almost identically to the AMD Radeon Vega 8, with a delta of -0.1%. It also sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and GTX 465, trailing them by 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively. This places its raw compute capability in the field of older discrete entry-level GPUs, which explains why it struggles with the high geometric complexity and detailed textures of Flight Simulator.

With 1024 shading units and 32 ROPs, the 890M has a limited amount of pixel processing power. The FP32 performance is rated at 5.939 TFLOPS, which is respectable for an iGPU but insufficient for the heavy lifting required at high resolutions. The game's performance at 4K, where the average FPS never exceeds 30 even on Low, shows that the GPU's memory subsystem and shading units are saturated. The fact that the difference between 1080p Low (50 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (28 FPS) is only 22 FPS suggests that the GPU is not only limited by pixel count but also by the increased shader complexity of higher presets.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Technically, yes, but the experience is not recommended. The data shows the highest average FPS at 4K is 30 on Low settings, dropping to 16 on Ultra. These frame rates are below the threshold for a smooth simulation experience, indicating that 4K is not a viable resolution for this hardware.

Q: What is the best resolution and setting combo for this hardware?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Low settings offers the highest average frame rate at 50 FPS. If you prefer higher visual fidelity, 1080p Medium yields 39 FPS, which is still playable. 1440p is only playable at Low settings, with an average of 40 FPS.

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

A: The penalty is substantial. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 30 at 4K, a 40% reduction. At Medium settings, it drops from 39 to 23, a 41% reduction. This indicates a severe scaling penalty due to the integrated GPU's limitations.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a high-end mobile CPU with a 95th percentile ranking, while the Radeon 890M sits in the 45th percentile. The frame rates scale directly with resolution changes, which is a hallmark of GPU limitation rather than CPU limitation.

Q: How does the Radeon 890M compare to other GPUs in this game?

A: The benchmark data shows it performs nearly identically to the AMD Radeon Vega 8, with a delta of -0.1%. It is also on par with older discrete cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, trailing by 0.7%. This gives a general idea of its expected performance class.

Q: Is the Ultra preset usable on this system?

A: At any resolution, the Ultra preset results in average frame rates below 30 FPS. At 1080p, it achieves 28 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 16 FPS. These numbers suggest that the Ultra preset is not a practical choice for a smooth experience with this hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the averages are as follows: Low settings yield 50 FPS, Medium yields 39 FPS (with a min of 33 and max of 44), High yields 29 FPS, and Ultra yields 28 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 22 FPS, showing that the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to see some scaling, but the GPU's limits are reached quickly.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop across the board: Low yields 40 FPS, Medium yields 31 FPS (with a min of 26 and max of 36), High yields 23 FPS, and Ultra yields 22 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent at around 20% for each setting, reinforcing the GPU-bound nature of the performance. The frame rate at 1440p High and Ultra are nearly identical, suggesting the GPU is hitting a hard computational wall regardless of the visual preset.

At 3840x2160, the performance is marginal at best. Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS (with a min of 20 and max of 26), High produces 17 FPS, and Ultra produces 16 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 1 FPS, indicating that the GPU is completely saturated and cannot process the additional effects without significant frame loss. The minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium is 20, which can lead to noticeable stutters in a flight simulator.

The overall trend in the data is a clear and predictable degradation of performance as both resolution and settings increase. The system's best case scenario is 1080p Low, where it can hit 50 FPS. Every other configuration compromises either average frame rate or visual quality. The data shows that this is a system for low-detail, low-resolution play if a stable frame rate is the priority.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz and a base clock of 3.00 GHz. Its benchmark scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 and a single-core score of 2044. It ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is a high-performance part capable of handling complex calculations. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and draw calls.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game. The frame rates scale almost exclusively with resolution, which is a GPU task. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, as the CPU load would be constant. Instead, we see significant drops from 1080p to 4K, proving that the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU's high single-thread performance, indicated by its 2044 Cinebench R23 score, is sufficient to feed the integrated GPU with data.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, provided by quad-channel LPDDR5X, is a crucial factor for the integrated GPU. Since the Radeon 890M uses system shared memory, its performance is heavily dependent on this bandwidth. The fact that the GPU still struggles suggests that even this high bandwidth is not enough for the demands of Flight Simulator at high resolutions. The CPU's 64 MB of shared L3 cache helps with data locality, but the sheer volume of texture and geometry data in this game overwhelms the shared memory architecture.

The nearest rivals to the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 in CPU benchmarks are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the Intel Core i9-14900K, with the AI Max+ sitting 1.6% ahead of the former and 1.7% behind the latter. This puts its raw compute power in the same league as desktop flagship processors. However, this CPU power is rendered moot by the integrated GPU's limitations in this specific game. The CPU is ready for more demanding tasks, but the GPU cannot keep up.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware is at 1920x1080. The Low preset provides the highest average frame rate at 50 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience. This should be the default choice for users who prioritize frame rate stability above all else. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 11 FPS (from 50 to 39), but the visual improvement in a simulator can be significant, making Medium a viable alternative.

For users who want to push visual quality, 1080p Medium is the sweet spot. The 39 FPS average is playable, and the minimum of 33 FPS shows that it maintains a relatively stable experience. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, with averages of 29 FPS and 28 FPS respectively, are not recommended as the performance cost is high and the frame rate drops below the 30 FPS threshold. There is no benefit to choosing Ultra over High, as the 1 FPS difference is negligible.

At 2560x1440, the only playable option is the Low preset, which yields 40 FPS. Medium at 1440p drops to 31 FPS, which is borderline, but the minimum of 26 FPS could cause noticeable hitches. High and Ultra at 1440p, with averages of 23 and 22 FPS, are not suitable for a smooth experience. 4K is not a viable resolution for this game on this hardware; even the Low preset at 30 FPS is too inconsistent for precise flight control.

In summary, the recommendation is to play at 1080p. If frame rate is the absolute priority, use Low. If a balance between visuals and performance is desired, use Medium. Avoid High and Ultra presets at all resolutions, as the frame rate cost does not justify the visual gains. The data confirms that this is a 1080p gaming system for Microsoft Flight Simulator, and users should set their expectations accordingly to avoid frustration.