Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX produces a clear picture of where the bottlenecks lie. The benchmark data indicates a system that is heavily skewed by the CPU at lower resolutions, while the GPU’s immense power takes over as the primary driver at 4K. The measured frames per second reveal a setup that can handle the simulation, but the experience is significantly shaped by the settings and resolution you choose.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K tells a definitive story about component limiting. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 127.1 FPS, but this drops to 116.5 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 109.7 FPS at 3840x2160. This is a surprisingly small penalty for such a massive increase in pixel count, with the 4K result being only 13.7% lower than the 1080p result. This indicates that at 1080p, the game is not being limited by the graphics card; the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is far more capable than what the resolution demands, and the Intel Core i5-9400 is the limiting factor.

The pattern shifts when you move to higher settings. At High settings, the gap widens considerably. The system produces 104.5 FPS at 1080p, 91.3 FPS at 1440p, and 62.8 FPS at 4K. The 4K figure is now 39.9% lower than the 1080p result. This suggests that while the CPU still has an influence at 1080p, the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck as the resolution increases, a trend that becomes absolute at the Ultra preset. The Ultra settings show a 105.3 FPS average at 1080p, dropping to 86.2 FPS at 1440p, and then falling sharply to 62.7 FPS at 4K. The performance cliff between 1440p and 4K at Ultra confirms that the RX 7900 XTX is being pushed to its absolute limit at the highest visual fidelity, while the CPU's role diminishes.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX powerful enough for 4K in this game?

A: The data shows it is, but only at specific settings. At 4K with High settings, the average frame rate is 62.8 FPS, and at Ultra it is 62.7 FPS. However, dropping to Medium yields 87.5 FPS, and Low produces 109.7 FPS, indicating that the card can handle 4K, but the visual preset is the key variable.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance at 1080p?

A: The benchmark results show that the Intel Core i5-9400 limits the frame rate at 1080p. Moving from Low to Ultra settings only drops the average FPS from 127.1 to 105.3, a relatively small change compared to the jump in graphical load. This suggests the CPU is the main constraint at this resolution.

Q: What is the best resolution for the highest frame rates?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 127.1 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 118.4 FPS at 1080p with Medium settings, showing that the lower resolutions provide the most headroom for high refresh rates.

Q: Is there a significant difference between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: Yes, the difference is measurable but not enormous. At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 91.3 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 86.2 FPS. That is a 5.1 FPS difference, which might be worth sacrificing for the visual upgrade, depending on your preference for smoothness.

Q: How does the RX 7900 XTX compare to its closest rivals in general performance?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 44019, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 580, has an average score of 44195, making the RX 7900 XTX 0.4% slower. It is also 2% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, which scores 44900.

Q: What kind of performance gap is there between the CPU and its direct competitors?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305, placing it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs. It performs nearly identically to the Intel Core i3-10305 and Intel Core i3-1125G4, which are 0.2% faster, and the Intel Xeon E-2134, which is 0.4% faster. It is 0.6% faster than the Intel Core i7-8809G.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth and visually rich experience, the benchmark data points to the Medium preset at 2560x1440 as the sweet spot for this hardware combination. The 109.8 FPS average is high enough for fluid panning and camera movement, and it is only 6.7 FPS lower than the Low preset at the same resolution. This suggests that the Medium preset offers a substantial graphical improvement over Low without incurring a significant performance penalty, making it the most efficient choice.

If you are targeting 4K, the data suggests that the High preset is the highest you should consider. With an average of 62.8 FPS, it is right at the edge of playability for a flight simulator, where consistent frame pacing is more important than hitting triple-digit frame rates. The Ultra preset at 4K offers no performance advantage over High, averaging 62.7 FPS, which means you can enable Ultra settings for a negligible cost if you are already at 4K and your monitor is capped at 60Hz. However, for those seeking the highest possible frame rates, the 1080p Medium setting at 118.4 FPS provides a very responsive experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured results shows a consistent hierarchy. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 109.7 FPS, Medium produces 87.5 FPS, High produces 62.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 62.7 FPS. The performance drops are steepest between Medium and High, where the frame rate falls by 24.7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results are more compressed. The Low preset averages 116.5 FPS, Medium averages 109.8 FPS, High averages 91.3 FPS, and Ultra averages 86.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 30.3 FPS, showing that the GPU has more headroom at this resolution. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are the highest overall. The Low preset averages 127.1 FPS, Medium averages 118.4 FPS, High averages 104.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 105.3 FPS. Interestingly, the High and Ultra presets are nearly identical at 1080p, with a difference of only 0.8 FPS, reinforcing the idea that the CPU is the limiting factor at this resolution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is a formidable piece of hardware, and its specifications show why it performs so well. It features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. The card’s boost clock is listed at 2498 MHz, with a game clock of 2365 MHz. This memory capacity and bandwidth are crucial for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data.

The GPU’s benchmark scores place it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 44019. Its closest rival in the data is the AMD Radeon Pro 580, which has an average score of 44195, a delta of -0.4%. This indicates that the RX 7900 XTX is a top-tier performer, though the data shows it is not the absolute fastest, being 2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. In the context of this game, the GPU’s role becomes apparent in the 4K benchmarks, where its raw power is the deciding factor between a 62.8 FPS High preset and a 109.7 FPS Low preset. The 4K results are almost entirely dictated by the GPU’s ability to render at that pixel density, and the data shows it has just enough power to maintain playable frame rates at High settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, with 9 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores show it to be a mid-range performer, sitting in the 50th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 2305. It is statistically tied with its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-10305 and the Intel Xeon E-2134, with a delta of 0.2% and 0.4%, respectively.

The data clearly shows that this CPU is the bottleneck at 1080p. The fact that the average frame rates at 1080p High (104.5 FPS) and Ultra (105.3 FPS) are nearly identical, while the 1440p High (91.3 FPS) and Ultra (86.2 FPS) show a larger gap, indicates the CPU cannot feed frames to the GPU fast enough at the lower resolution. This is a classic sign of a CPU limit. The 6-core, 6-thread configuration is likely being fully utilized by the simulation’s physics and AI calculations, preventing the graphics card from reaching its true potential. At 4K, the CPU’s load is relatively lighter, as the GPU takes more time to render each frame, allowing the system to achieve a higher GPU utilization and better scaling from the 1080p results.