Benchmark your PC for flight simulators with repeatable test flights, frame-time logging, bottleneck checks and fair before-and-after comparisons.
To benchmark your PC for flight simulators, use a repeatable saved or recorded flight, log frame rate, frame times, CPU/GPU utilisation and temperatures, then change one setting at a time. Test a heavy airport, cruise and dense-cloud weather scenario; averages alone are not enough—1% lows and stutters matter.
What is the best benchmark for a flight simulator?
There is no universal PC flight simulator benchmark because Microsoft Flight Simulator, X-Plane, DCS, Prepar3D and FSX stress hardware differently. The most useful benchmark is the simulator, aircraft and scenery you actually use, flown through a controlled scenario that can be repeated.
Synthetic CPU and GPU benchmarks can confirm that a component performs normally, but they do not reproduce glass-cockpit displays, scenery draw calls, AI traffic or terrain streaming. For hardware comparisons, start with a stock aircraft and stock scenery; benchmark demanding add-ons separately so their scripts and textures do not obscure the underlying result.
For Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024, our MSFS 2024 baseline and bottleneck workflow explains how to distinguish main-thread, GPU, VRAM and scenery-streaming limits.
A repeatable PC flight simulator benchmark
A valid benchmark keeps every variable fixed except the component or setting being tested.
- Define the purpose. Decide whether you are comparing hardware, testing a graphics setting or measuring your normal flying configuration. A stock test is easier to reproduce, while a second add-on test shows the performance you will experience in practice.
- Lock the display settings. Record resolution, render scale, anti-aliasing or upscaling mode, graphics preset, frame generation, VSync, frame-rate cap and display mode. Changing any of these invalidates a direct comparison.
- Control dynamic variables. Use preset weather, a fixed time, the same traffic levels and the same cockpit camera. Disable live weather, live traffic, multiplayer and random failures for controlled runs; test those features separately afterwards.
- Prepare the PC consistently. Reboot, allow background updates to finish, close unnecessary applications and use the same power mode and graphics driver. Keep the monitoring overlay active for every run because overlays themselves can add a small, consistent overhead.
- Create fixed test flights. Use the same aircraft state, airport position, route and camera. A demanding airport departure or approach exposes CPU limits, while dense clouds at cruise altitude are useful for GPU testing. Replays help where supported, although some simulators do not reproduce traffic, weather or aircraft systems deterministically.
- Run an unmeasured warm-up pass. Shader compilation, scenery caches and streamed terrain can make the first pass unusually rough after an update or driver change. Measure cold-cache or first-load behaviour separately rather than mixing it with warmed benchmark runs.
- Record at least three runs. Capture the same fixed segment each time and compare the median result. If the runs vary widely, find the uncontrolled variable before drawing a conclusion.
- Change one item only. Alter one graphics setting, component or driver option, repeat the complete test, then restore the baseline before testing something else.
Which FPS and frame-time results matter?
Average FPS shows overall throughput, but frame-time consistency reveals pauses and judder that the average can hide.
| Measurement | What it reveals | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Average FPS | General performance across the test | Use it with lows and frame times, never by itself. |
| 1% low FPS | Performance among the slowest frames | Compare smoothness during approaches, camera movement and scenery loading. |
| Frame-time graph | Individual stutters and pacing | Look for repeated spikes rather than one isolated loading event. |
| CPU and GPU frame time | Which processor is taking longer to produce a frame | The higher frame time normally identifies the active bottleneck. |
| GPU utilisation, clocks and temperature | GPU load or possible throttling | Interpret these only with frame times and with frame caps accounted for. |
| VRAM, system RAM, disk and network activity | Memory pressure or scenery-streaming stalls | Watch what changes at the exact moment a stutter occurs. |
A steady 60 FPS requires frames around 16.7 ms; 30 FPS allows about 33.3 ms. Maximum FPS is rarely useful. Use the same logging tool throughout because different tools can calculate percentile lows differently.
How do I identify a CPU or GPU bottleneck?
The limiting component is the one whose frame time stays highest during the same scene, not necessarily the device showing the highest overall utilisation.
- GPU limit: GPU load remains close to full, GPU frame time exceeds CPU frame time, and reducing resolution or render scale produces a clear improvement. Clouds, shadows, reflections, anti-aliasing and high output resolutions commonly increase this load.
- CPU or main-thread limit: The simulator reports a main-thread limitation, one busy CPU core controls performance, and GPU utilisation falls below its potential. Total CPU usage can look modest because flight simulators do not distribute every task evenly across all cores.
- VRAM pressure: Dedicated graphics memory approaches its practical limit, shared memory use grows and stutters appear when changing views or loading detailed scenery. Lower texture resolution or scenery detail before assuming that the GPU core is too slow.
- Storage or streaming stalls: Spikes occur when entering new scenery areas while disk or network activity rises. Repeat the route after a warm-up pass; if the stutter disappears, it was not a simple CPU or GPU throughput problem.
- Thermal or power throttling: Clock speeds decline during a long run as temperatures rise. A short benchmark can miss this, so include one sustained flight when checking cooling or laptop power modes.
Frame generation raises displayed FPS by inserting generated frames, but it does not remove a main-thread limitation or shorten the simulator's underlying update time. Disable it for the hardware baseline, then test it separately for perceived smoothness. Keep DLSS, FSR, XeSS, TAA and render scale unchanged between comparisons.
Once the bottleneck is known, use our MSFS settings grouped by CPU and GPU cost rather than lowering every option indiscriminately.
What changes between MSFS, X-Plane, DCS and FSX?
The benchmark method stays the same, but each simulator needs different variables held constant.
- Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and 2024: Online scenery, photogrammetry, traffic and live weather can introduce network or service variation. Use a warmed fixed route for controlled testing, then run a separate online-data test.
- X-Plane: Keep the aircraft, scenery tiles, weather, object density, plug-ins and rendering back end identical. Custom aircraft and scenery can behave very differently from stock content.
- DCS: Use the same mission, AI unit count, scripts, cockpit view and mission state. A quiet free-flight mission cannot represent a large combat mission's CPU workload.
- FSX, FS2004 and Prepar3D: These older platforms are often constrained by the main thread and scenery draw calls rather than total CPU utilisation. Frame limits, traffic, autogen and add-on airports can materially change the result; our FSX performance-testing notes cover those legacy-specific factors.
Can I benchmark flight simulators in VR?
VR must be benchmarked separately against the headset's frame deadline. Fix headset resolution, simulator render scale, refresh rate and motion-reprojection mode, then record application frame time, compositor frame time and dropped frames. Do not compare a monitor result directly with VR FPS.
How do I make fair before-and-after comparisons?
A result is meaningful only when its improvement exceeds normal run-to-run variation and does not damage frame-time consistency.
Record the simulator build, aircraft, scenery, add-ons, route, weather, traffic, camera, graphics settings, resolution, driver, frame cap and benchmark duration beside every result. Simulator, aircraft and scenery updates can alter workload, so results from different builds should not be treated as direct hardware comparisons.
A mistake we see constantly is claiming a gain from one unusually fast run. Compare the median of repeated runs and inspect the full frame-time graph. If the improvement is smaller than the spread between baseline runs, treat it as measurement noise rather than a real performance gain.