Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i7-14700K and AMD Radeon RX 9060 reveals a clear pattern of resolution sensitivity. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 111 FPS average, which drops to 89 FPS at 1440p and further to 66 FPS at 4K. This progression represents a 40.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. At High settings, the drop is steeper: 65 FPS at 1080p falls to 52 FPS at 1440p and 39 FPS at 4K, a 40% decline. The Ultra preset shows similar scaling, with 62 FPS at 1080p, 50 FPS at 1440p, and 37 FPS at 4K.

The nature of these drops points to a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. From 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings, the average FPS declines from 86 to 69, a 19.8% reduction. From 1440p to 4K at Medium, the average falls from 69 to 51, a 26.1% reduction. The increasing percentage drop as resolution climbs suggests that the AMD Radeon RX 9060’s memory bandwidth and pixel throughput become limiting factors. The GPU's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and 191.4 GPixel/s pixel rate are the relevant hardware characteristics here. At 4K, the GPU must push four times the pixels of 1080p, and the data shows it cannot maintain playable performance above Low settings—only the Low preset at 4K exceeds 60 FPS.

The minimal FPS figures available for Medium settings reinforce this interpretation. At 1080p Medium, the minimum FPS is 73, but at 1440p Medium, the minimum drops to 59, and at 4K Medium, it falls to 44. These minimums indicate frame time consistency degrades significantly as resolution increases. The gap between average and minimum FPS widens from 13 FPS at 1080p to 10 FPS at 1440p and 7 FPS at 4K, suggesting the GPU is increasingly saturated. For flight simulation, where smooth panning over terrain is critical, the 4K Medium minimum of 44 FPS would likely produce noticeable stutter. The data clearly indicates that 1080p remains the sweet spot for this combination, with all presets except Ultra maintaining average FPS above 65.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700K brings substantial processing resources to Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 20 cores and 28 threads, this Raptor Lake architecture processor operates at a 3.40 GHz base clock and 5.60 GHz boost clock. The processor’s cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications matter for a flight simulator that must continuously update aircraft systems, weather, and terrain data. The CPU’s benchmark scores reflect its capability: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 33440.5 and a single-core score of 2160. The Geekbench multicore score of 20767 with a single-core score of 2569 further substantiates its processing strength.

In the context of this game’s performance, the CPU’s role is most evident in the scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combination produces 111 FPS, while at 4K Low, it produces 66 FPS. The fact that even at 4K Low, the system maintains 66 FPS average suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at lower graphical loads. However, the CPU’s 94th percentile ranking among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 69355, positions it well above most alternatives. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9115 with a score of 69288 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 69515 (-0.2% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX at 69875 (-0.7% delta). These deltas are minimal, indicating the i7-14700K sits at the top tier of CPU performance.

The Passmark physics score of 2964 and the integer math score of 182876 suggest robust computational throughput for simulation logic. Flight simulator workloads typically involve complex physics calculations for aerodynamics, which benefit from high single-thread performance. The i7-14700K’s single-thread Passmark score of 4472 and its 5.60 GHz boost clock provide the necessary headroom for these calculations. The data does not show a scenario where the CPU alone limits FPS below the GPU’s capability, as the FPS reductions track closely with resolution changes rather than preset complexity at a fixed resolution. However, the CPU’s 125 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory support indicate it can feed the GPU adequately without creating a memory bandwidth bottleneck.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the performance limiter in this pairing, particularly at higher resolutions and presets. Built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 44 chip on a 4 nm process, this GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GPU’s clocks are notable: a 1700 MHz base, 2400 MHz game clock, and 2990 MHz boost. With 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, the RX 9060 delivers 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s define its fill-rate capabilities.

At 4K Ultra, the combination manages only 37 FPS average, which is below the 60 FPS threshold typically desired for smooth gameplay. The 4K High preset achieves 39 FPS, barely better. This indicates the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 288 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the high-resolution texture loads that Microsoft Flight Simulator demands. The GPU’s benchmark scores tell a similar story: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3322 and a Passmark G3D score of 17631 place it in the 59th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with an average score of 16129 (-0.7% delta), the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15862 (1% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 at 15852 (1% delta). These comparisons show the RX 9060 is competitive with mid-range GPUs from previous generations, but its 8 GB VRAM capacity is a limitation for modern titles at high resolutions.

The GPU’s memory configuration—8 GB GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective—provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and photogrammetry data, this bandwidth can become a constraint. The measured FPS data supports this: the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (111 FPS) and Ultra (62 FPS) is 49 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (66 FPS) and Ultra (37 FPS) is 29 FPS. The smaller absolute gap at 4K suggests the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling regardless of settings, likely due to memory bandwidth or pixel throughput limits rather than shader compute.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this Intel Core i7-14700K + AMD Radeon RX 9060 combination ranks 1712 out of 2996 tested combos. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the spectrum, which is a somewhat surprising result given the CPU’s top-tier status. The rank reflects the GPU’s mid-range positioning dragging down an otherwise exceptional processor. The 59th percentile GPU ranking versus the 94th percentile CPU ranking creates a significant imbalance. The combo’s position suggests that for this specific game, the GPU is the determining factor for placement, as the CPU’s extensive processing power cannot compensate for the GPU’s VRAM and bandwidth constraints at higher settings.

The ranking distribution indicates that roughly 57% of tested combinations outperform this pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is not a reflection of the CPU’s capability—the i7-14700K outperforms 94% of all CPUs on average benchmark scores. Rather, it reflects that many other combinations pair similarly capable CPUs with more powerful GPUs. The RX 9060’s nearest GPU rivals—the RTX 3060 Ti, R9 370X, and RX 7700—all have comparable average scores, suggesting this GPU tier is widely used in combinations that may rank higher due to better CPU-GPU balance. For users considering this setup, the data indicates that the CPU has substantial headroom for future GPU upgrades without becoming a bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows 1080p is the strongest resolution, with all presets except Ultra achieving average FPS above 65. At 1080p Low, the average is 111 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, it is 86 FPS. At 4K, only the Low preset exceeds 60 FPS with an average of 66 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 has an average benchmark score of 16014, which is 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129), 1% above the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862), and 1% above the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852). It ranks in the 59th percentile among all GPUs.

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

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 37, while at 4K Low, it is 66. The CPU maintains high benchmark scores (94th percentile), so the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are the constraints preventing higher performance at 4K.

Q: What are the minimum FPS figures for Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At 1080p Medium, the minimum FPS is 73. At 1440p Medium, it drops to 59. At 4K Medium, the minimum FPS is 44. These figures show increasing frame-time instability as resolution increases.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700K has an average benchmark score of 69355. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9115, scores 69288 (0.1% higher). The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.2% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.7% lower). The CPU ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 65 at 1080p to 52 at 1440p and 39 at 4K. This represents a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K, highlighting the GPU’s resolution sensitivity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table summarizes all measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i7-14700K and AMD Radeon RX 9060:

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

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

| 3840x2160 | High | 39 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 66 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 51 | 44 | 59 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 37 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | High | 52 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 89 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 69 | 59 | 80 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 50 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | High | 65 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 111 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 86 | 73 | 99 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 62 | — | — |

At 1080p, the full preset range spans from 62 FPS at Ultra to 111 FPS at Low. The Medium preset provides a balanced 86 FPS average with a 73 FPS minimum. Moving to 1440p, the averages range from 50 FPS at Ultra to 89 FPS at Low. The Medium preset at 1440p yields 69 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum. At 4K, the averages range from 37 FPS at Ultra to 66 FPS at Low. The Medium preset at 4K delivers 51 FPS average with a 44 FPS minimum and 59 FPS maximum.

The data reveals that at 1080p, the Ultra preset (62 FPS) and High preset (65 FPS) deliver nearly identical performance, suggesting a settings threshold where additional graphical features have diminishing returns. At 1440p, the gap between High (52 FPS) and Ultra (50 FPS) narrows further to just 2 FPS. At 4K, High (39 FPS) and Ultra (37 FPS) are also within 2 FPS of each other. This pattern suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so constrained that the difference between High and Ultra settings becomes negligible, while the difference between Low and Medium remains significant—at 4K, Low delivers 66 FPS while Medium delivers 51 FPS, a 15 FPS gap. For users seeking consistent frame rates above 60 FPS, the data supports using Low settings at 4K or any preset at 1080p except Ultra.