Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 combination delivers a strong performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing that the system is capable of high frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K requires more conservative settings to maintain smooth gameplay. Based on the measured FPS data, the best playable setting at 4K is Medium, while the Ultra preset is fully playable at both 1440p and 1080p.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest preset that maintains 60 FPS at 1920x1080?

A: The Ultra preset delivers an average of 92 FPS, which is the highest demanding setting that stays above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is the game playable at 4K with this hardware?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160 the Low and Medium presets remain playable, with Medium providing an average of 76 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945 on average, which is within 0.5% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (36938) and AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018).

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 2560x1440?

A: The Low preset averages 133 FPS, while Ultra drops to 74 FPS, representing a significant gap of 59 FPS between the two extremes.

Q: Which component has a higher percentile ranking among all tested hardware?

A: The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 81st percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Does the GPU support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals how the workload shifts between CPU and GPU. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 148 FPS on Low settings, which indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding frames at a high rate without being the limiting factor. When moving to 2560x1440, the same Low preset drops to 133 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 98 FPS. This progression shows that the GPU becomes increasingly responsible for frame rendering as pixel count rises.

The RTX 4070's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for texture streaming at higher resolutions. The data supports this interpretation: at 4K Medium, the average FPS is 76, which is only 27 FPS lower than the 1080p Medium result of 128 FPS. This 40% performance reduction across a 4x increase in pixel count illustrates that the GPU is the dominant factor at higher resolutions.

Conversely, at 1080p, the CPU's role becomes more prominent. The Ryzen 5 5600F, with 6 cores and 12 threads on the Zen 3 architecture, delivers strong single-thread performance with a Passmark single-thread score of 2872. This helps maintain high frame rates even when the GPU is not fully saturated. The transition from 1080p Ultra (92 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (74 FPS) shows a 18 FPS drop, while the drop from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra (55 FPS) is 19 FPS, suggesting that the scaling is relatively consistent once past the CPU-bound threshold.

For presets, the pattern is clear: Low settings at 4K achieve 98 FPS, but Ultra at 4K falls to 55 FPS, below the playable threshold. The GPU's 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 46 RT cores are heavily taxed by the Ultra preset's additional rendering features. The data indicates that at 1080p and 1440p, the system is balanced, with both components contributing meaningfully, but at 4K, the GPU is the primary bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 92 FPS, making it the most demanding setting that stays comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset also performs well at 96 FPS, but Ultra is the best choice for visual fidelity without sacrificing playability.

For 2560x1440, the Ultra preset remains the optimal choice, achieving 74 FPS on average. This is above the playable threshold and provides the highest quality experience at this resolution. The High preset at 78 FPS is nearly identical, but Ultra offers more visual features for a minor FPS cost.

At 3840x2160, the Medium preset is the best playable option, delivering 76 FPS with minimums of 65 FPS and maximums of 88 FPS. The Ultra preset falls to 55 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and High at 57 FPS is also not playable. Low at 98 FPS is playable but sacrifices significant visual quality, so Medium strikes the best balance.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at all three tested resolutions, but the experience varies significantly. At 1920x1080, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) clear the 60 FPS threshold, with the best playable setting being Ultra at 92 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same is true, with Ultra achieving 74 FPS, making this the highest resolution where the full visual experience is accessible.

At 3840x2160, only the Low and Medium presets are playable, with Medium being the recommended settings at 76 FPS. The High and Ultra presets fall short of 60 FPS, with averages of 57 and 55 respectively. The system is best suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p or 1440p gaming, while 4K users will need to compromise on settings to maintain smooth performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080

• Low: 148 FPS average
• Medium: 128 FPS average, 109 FPS minimum, 147 FPS maximum
• High: 96 FPS average
• Ultra: 92 FPS average

2560x1440

• Low: 133 FPS average
• Medium: 103 FPS average, 88 FPS minimum, 119 FPS maximum
• High: 78 FPS average
• Ultra: 74 FPS average

3840x2160

• Low: 98 FPS average
• Medium: 76 FPS average, 65 FPS minimum, 88 FPS maximum
• High: 57 FPS average
• Ultra: 55 FPS average

The data shows a consistent scaling pattern: the Medium preset provides the most detailed frame time information with min/max values, indicating stable performance. The Low and High presets lack min/max data, but the averages suggest typical behavior. The 1080p results show the system's peak performance, with Low reaching 148 FPS, while 4K results demonstrate the GPU's limits, with Ultra just below the playable threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3714 tested combinations in this game, this CPU-GPU pair ranks 975th, placing it in the upper third of all tested systems. This ranking reflects the balanced nature of the Ryzen 5 5600F and RTX 4070, which together provide strong performance without being a top-tier enthusiast setup.

The CPU's 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the GPU's 81st percentile ranking among all GPUs indicate that both components are above average, but neither is at the extreme high end. The combination's rank in the 26th percentile of tested combos suggests that while it performs well, there are many more powerful configurations available, particularly those with higher-core-count CPUs or higher-tier GPUs.

In practical terms, this rank means the system is well-suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p gaming and solid 1440p performance, but it may struggle with the most demanding scenarios at 4K, as evidenced by the Ultra preset's 55 FPS average. The ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows strong performance at lower resolutions and diminishing returns at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores provide insight into what other processors would offer similar performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 scores 36938, a 0% delta from the Ryzen 5 5600F's 36945, making it a direct equivalent. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, which is 0.2% higher, offering a marginal performance increase. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 is 0.4% faster, while the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 is 0.5% faster.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA Tesla P4 scores 37628, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 4070's 37648. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37507, a 0.4% difference, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile scores 38135, which is 1.3% higher. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 37157, 1.3% lower than the RTX 4070.

These alternatives would behave similarly in game, with the CPU equivalents providing nearly identical frame rates and the GPU equivalents offering performance within a few percent. Users with these components can expect similar playability at the tested resolutions, with the main differences being minor FPS variations rather than fundamental changes in the gaming experience.