Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 was evaluated in Microsoft Flight Simulator using measured frame rates across three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). The CPU carries a launch MSRP of $229, and the GPU has a launch MSRP of $599 USD. This analysis relies exclusively on the provided measurement data and hardware specifications.

FAQ

Q: What is the average frame rate at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The RTX 4070 and Ryzen 5 7400F deliver an average of 55 FPS at 3840x2160 on Ultra, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Which settings are playable at 2560x1440?

A: All four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—stay at or above 60 FPS at 1440p. The highest playable preset is Ultra, averaging 74 FPS.

Q: How does this combination rank among all tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 833rd out of 3,714 tested CPU-GPU combinations, placing it in the top 22% of all pairings (better than 77.6% of tested systems).

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1920x1080?

A: At 1080p, Ultra is the most demanding preset that remains playable, with an average of 92 FPS.

Q: What are the CPU and GPU performance percentiles?

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F sits in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the RTX 4070 is in the 81st percentile among all GPUs, based on aggregate benchmark scores.

Q: Does the game ever drop below 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Yes—both High (57 FPS) and Ultra (55 FPS) fall below 60 FPS. Only Low (98 FPS) and Medium (76 FPS) exceed the threshold at 4K.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured frame rates reveal a clear shift in bottleneck behavior across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system reaches 165 FPS on Low settings, a figure that is only modestly reduced to 133 FPS at 1440p and 98 FPS at 4K. This scaling pattern indicates that the CPU—with its 6 cores, 12 threads, and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,072—has ample headroom to drive high frame rates even at lower resolutions. The RTX 4070, with 5,888 shading units and a boost clock of 2,475 MHz, becomes the limiting factor as pixel count rises.

At 1080p, the GPU is still capable of delivering 165 FPS on Low, but the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases. For instance, at 1080p the difference between Low and Ultra is 73 FPS (165 vs. 92), while at 4K it shrinks to 43 FPS (98 vs. 55). This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU's workload dominates, and the CPU's contribution becomes relatively less significant. The CPU's multi-threaded performance—21,765 in Cinebench R23—is more than sufficient for the simulation's logic, while the GPU's memory bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s and 12 GB of GDDR6X VRAM handle the increasing texture and geometry demands.

The data supports the interpretation that this is a balanced pairing for 1080p and 1440p, where the CPU can keep up with the GPU's output. At 4K, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, as evidenced by the sub-60 FPS results on High and Ultra presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table lists the exact average frame rates for each resolution and preset. Minimum and maximum values are provided for Medium settings only.

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

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

| 1920x1080 | Low | 165 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 128 | 109 | 147 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 96 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 92 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 133 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 103 | 88 | 119 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 78 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 74 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 98 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 76 | 65 | 88 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 57 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 55 | — | — |

At 1080p, even the heaviest preset (Ultra) maintains an average of 92 FPS, with Low reaching 165 FPS. The Medium preset shows a min of 109 FPS, indicating that frame times remain consistent. At 1440p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 59 FPS (133 to 74), and all presets stay comfortably above 60 FPS. The 4K results are more varied: Low and Medium are playable, but High and Ultra dip to 57 and 55 FPS respectively, missing the 60 FPS target.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 3,714 tested CPU-GPU combinations, this pairing ranks 833rd. That places it in the top 22% of all systems, outperforming 77.6% of tested configurations. The CPU itself holds an 83rd percentile rank among all CPUs, and the GPU an 81st percentile rank among all GPUs. These percentile figures suggest that both components are well above average in their respective categories, and their combination yields a system that is competitive for this simulation title.

The ranking is particularly notable because Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both CPU (for flight physics and world simulation) and GPU (for terrain rendering). The measured frame rates at 1440p and 1080p show that the system can handle the game at high quality settings without exceeding the 60 FPS threshold, while 4K requires lowering to Medium or Low.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Based on aggregate benchmark scores, the following CPUs are within 0.3% of the Ryzen 5 7400F's average score of 32,750:

• Intel Core i5-14600T – 0.1% higher average score (32,707)
• Intel Core Ultra 7 155H – 0.2% higher (32,697)
• AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H – 0.2% lower (32,812)
• AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 – 0.3% higher (32,662)

For the GPU, the RTX 4070's average benchmark score of 37,648 is closely matched by:

• NVIDIA Tesla P4 – 0.1% higher (37,628)
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 – 0.4% higher (37,507)
• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile – 1.3% lower (38,135)
• AMD Radeon PRO W6400 – 1.3% higher (37,157)

These alternatives would likely produce very similar in-game performance, though the exact frame rates would depend on their specific architectural characteristics. The delta percentages are derived from synthetic benchmarks, so real-world gaming results may vary slightly.

The Verdict

The Ryzen 5 7400F and RTX 4070 can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable settings depend heavily on resolution. At 3840x2160, the system meets the 60 FPS threshold only on Low (98 FPS) and Medium (76 FPS). High and Ultra fall short at 57 and 55 FPS respectively. At 2560x1440, all four presets are playable, with Ultra delivering 74 FPS. At 1920x1080, every preset clears 60 FPS, with Ultra averaging 92 FPS.

For a smooth experience at 4K, the user must select Medium or Low. At 1440p and 1080p, the system offers full freedom to choose any preset, with Ultra remaining above 60 FPS in both cases. The measured data confirms that this combination is well-suited for high-refresh-rate play at 1080p and 1440p, and it can handle 4K with moderate settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS at each resolution is:

• 3840x2160 (4K): Medium – average 76 FPS (min 65, max 88). High and Ultra are not playable.
• 2560x1440 (1440p): Ultra – average 74 FPS. All presets are playable, but Ultra offers the highest visual quality while still exceeding 60 FPS.
• 1920x1080 (1080p): Ultra – average 92 FPS. This is the maximum quality setting, and it maintains a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target.

These recommendations provide the best visual fidelity without sacrificing the 60 FPS playability threshold. Users who prioritize frame rate over quality can drop to lower presets to gain additional headroom, but the data shows that the system can already handle the top preset at 1080p and 1440p.