Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both CPU and GPU heavily, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 produces a wide spread of performance across resolutions and presets. The data shows a system capable of high refresh rates at 1080p and playable, though less fluid, frame rates at 4K Ultra. This analysis breaks down the measured results, contextualizes the hardware's standing, and provides actionable settings guidance based strictly on the provided benchmark data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases, though the CPU's influence remains significant even at lower settings. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 173 FPS, which drops to 139 FPS at 1440p and further to 103 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that while the RTX 5090 is powerful, the resolution jump still imposes a heavy load.

Moving to Medium settings, the scaling is slightly less steep in percentage terms but still pronounced: 135 FPS at 1080p falls to 109 FPS at 1440p (a 19% drop), and then to 80 FPS at 4K (a 27% drop from 1440p). The pattern suggests that at 1440p Medium, the system is still partially CPU-limited, as the frame rate is disproportionately high relative to the pixel count increase. However, at 4K Medium, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor, as the 80 FPS average is only 59% of the 1080p result.

With High settings, the scaling continues: 101 FPS at 1080p, 82 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19%, consistent with the Medium preset, but the 4K result is exactly 60 FPS, suggesting a hard cap or a v-sync-like behavior in the benchmark environment. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 96 FPS at 1080p, 78 FPS at 1440p, and 57 FPS at 4K, showing a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

The data indicates that the CPU (AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395) is the dominant constraint at 1080p Low, where the 173 FPS figure far exceeds what the GPU would typically deliver at that resolution if purely GPU-bound. As resolution increases, the RTX 5090's workload grows, and by 4K Ultra, the system is firmly GPU-limited, with the 57 FPS average reflecting the immense pixel and shading demands of Flight Simulator's Ultra preset.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the primary driver of frame rates at higher resolutions and settings, and its specifications directly explain the observed performance. With 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, the card offers 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for Flight Simulator's large texture streaming workloads. The GPU's boost clock of 2407 MHz and base clock of 2017 MHz are not the highest in the absolute sense, but the 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power provides ample headroom for the game's complex geometry and lighting calculations.

The GPU's benchmarks place it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 79842. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, scores 79605, which is only 0.3% lower, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 80959, putting it 1.4% higher. These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX 5090 is at the very top tier of graphics hardware, but the Flight Simulator results suggest that raw compute is not the only factor. The 32 GB memory capacity is notably larger than the 16 GB on the Tesla P100, and this may explain why the RTX 5090 can sustain higher frame rates at 4K Ultra without stutter, as the game can cache more assets.

The GPU's VRAM and bandwidth become particularly relevant at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS of 57 is only 5% lower than the 60 FPS at 4K High. This small delta suggests that Ultra settings do not impose a massive memory bandwidth penalty, but rather a compute penalty, as the 680 TMUs and 176 ROPs are pushed harder. The RTX 5090's 170 RT cores and 680 tensor cores are also relevant, though Flight Simulator's reliance on ray tracing is minimal in these presets, so their impact is indirect. The passmark G3D score of 39650 confirms the GPU's strength, but the measured FPS data shows that even this flagship card cannot brute-force 4K Ultra past 60 FPS in this title.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 586th out of 2996 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 20% of all tested configurations, which is a strong showing given the game's notoriously heavy CPU load. The CPU itself sits in the 95th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 77740, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900K, which scores 79097 (1.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, which scores 76212 (2% lower).

The combo rank of 586 suggests that while the individual components are top-tier, the pairing is not optimal for this specific game. The CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads are more than sufficient, but Flight Simulator is known for its single-thread sensitivity, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 395's single-core Geekbench score of 2464 is not exceptional. The GPU's 92nd percentile ranking is slightly lower than the CPU's 95th, which may contribute to the combo ranking being dragged down. However, the deltaPct values for the CPU's rivals are all within 2%, meaning the processor is competitive with the best available, so the rank is more a function of the game's engine than any hardware deficiency.

Compared to other combos in the database, this setup is clearly a high-end configuration, but the 586th rank out of 2996 implies that there are many combos with faster CPUs or better-tuned memory configurations that achieve higher frame rates. The data shows that the RTX 5090 is not the bottleneck at lower resolutions, so the CPU's performance in single-threaded tasks likely caps the frame rate, preventing this combo from breaking into the top 500.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 173 FPS, Medium produces 135 FPS (with a min of 114 and max of 155), High produces 101 FPS, and Ultra produces 96 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 22% reduction, from Medium to High is a 25% reduction, and from High to Ultra is only a 5% reduction, indicating that the Ultra preset adds minimal overhead at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 139 FPS for Low, 109 FPS for Medium (min 92, max 125), 82 FPS for High, and 78 FPS for Ultra. The percentage drops between presets are 22% from Low to Medium, 25% from Medium to High, and 5% from High to Ultra, which mirrors the 1080p pattern almost exactly. This consistency suggests that the game's settings scaling is uniform across resolutions, and that the CPU is still providing enough headroom at 1440p for the GPU to be the primary factor in preset scaling.

At 3840x2160, the results are 103 FPS for Low, 80 FPS for Medium (min 68, max 92), 60 FPS for High, and 57 FPS for Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 22%, but the drop from Medium to High is 25%, and from High to Ultra is only 5%. The 4K High and Ultra results are notably close, with just 3 FPS separating them, and both sit at or below the 60 FPS threshold. The min FPS values are only provided for Medium settings across all resolutions, showing 114 at 1080p, 92 at 1440p, and 68 at 4K, which indicates that the Medium preset has the most consistent frame pacing.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, particularly at 1440p and 4K. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS of 109 with a minimum of 92 ensures a smooth experience on high-refresh-rate monitors, and the 125 FPS maximum provides headroom for dips. At 3840x2160 Medium, the 80 FPS average with a 68 FPS minimum is playable on standard 60 Hz displays, though it may not be ideal for competitive play.

For users targeting 1080p, the Ultra preset at 96 FPS is the best choice, as the 5% performance cost over High is negligible relative to the visual gains. At 1440p, High settings at 82 FPS are a solid alternative to Medium if visual fidelity is prioritized, but the 109 FPS of Medium is more fluid. At 4K, the High preset at 60 FPS is the maximum playable configuration, as the Ultra preset's 57 FPS offers no meaningful advantage and risks dropping below 60 FPS in dense scenery.

The Low preset is not recommended for any resolution, as the frame rates of 173 FPS at 1080p, 139 FPS at 1440p, and 103 FPS at 4K are excessive for a flight simulator, and the visual degradation is severe. The data suggests that Medium is the "sweet spot" for this combo, offering frame rates that are 35% higher than High at 1440p and 33% higher at 4K, while still maintaining a playable experience. For users with 120 Hz or 144 Hz displays, 1440p Medium is the clear winner, as the 109 FPS average approaches the refresh rate limit.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for a smooth 60 FPS experience?

A: At 3840x2160, the High preset delivers exactly 60 FPS average, while the Medium preset at 4K provides 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS, making Medium the safer choice for maintaining 60 FPS during demanding scenes.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, which is 1.7% lower than the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097) and 2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (76212). It also trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX by 1.6%.

Q: Is the RTX 5090's 32 GB VRAM necessary for this game?

A: The measured data does not show a VRAM bottleneck at any resolution, as even the 4K Ultra preset only drops to 57 FPS, but the 32 GB capacity ensures that texture streaming at Ultra settings does not cause stutter, which is critical in a flight sim with large terrain data.

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

A: At 2560x1440, High settings produce 82 FPS average, while Ultra produces 78 FPS, a difference of only 4 FPS or 5%. This indicates that Ultra is a near-free visual upgrade at this resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 586th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 20% of all configurations. This is a strong result, though not top-tier, likely due to the CPU's single-thread performance limitations.

Q: Does the frame rate scale linearly from 1080p to 4K?

A: No, the scaling is non-linear. At Low settings, 1080p yields 173 FPS and 4K yields 103 FPS (a 40% drop), while at Ultra settings, 1080p yields 96 FPS and 4K yields 57 FPS (a 41% drop). The percentage drop is consistent across presets, but the absolute delta varies.