Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on 1080p?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows 92 FPS at Low settings, 71 FPS at Medium settings, 54 FPS at High settings, and 51 FPS at Ultra settings at 1920x1080. Both Low and Medium clear the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 1440p with this hardware?

A: The only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440 is Low, which delivers 74 FPS on average. Medium drops to 58 FPS, High to 43 FPS, and Ultra to 41 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest recorded average is 55 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 42 FPS, High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 30 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations in the database?

A: This pair ranks 2912 out of 3714 total combinations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower portion of the tested field, roughly in the bottom 22 percent of all configurations.

Q: Which component is the stronger performer relative to its peers?

A: The CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 58th percentile among all graphics cards. The processor is clearly the stronger part relative to its competition, suggesting the graphics card is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values recorded at Medium settings?

A: At 1080p Medium, the range is 61 to 82 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 49 to 66 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 36 to 49 FPS. No min or max values were recorded for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear pattern where resolution scaling affects performance more dramatically than preset changes. Looking at the average FPS progression from 1080p to 1440p to 4K, the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as the bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 92 FPS. Dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 74 FPS, a 19.6 percent decrease. Moving to 4K Low yields 55 FPS, another 25.7 percent drop. The GPU's raw throughput, with its 192-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, struggles to feed the increasing pixel counts.

The Ultra preset tells a similar story with a steeper decline. At 1080p Ultra, the system records 51 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, that falls to 41 FPS, a 19.6 percent reduction. At 4K Ultra, the average bottoms out at 30 FPS, another 26.8 percent decrease. The consistency of these percentage drops across presets suggests the GPU is the primary constraint at every resolution, since the CPU workload remains relatively constant while pixel throughput demands scale with resolution.

The CPU, a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, delivers strong single-threaded performance, something Microsoft Flight Simulator relies on heavily for its simulation and physics calculations. The recorded 3DMark single-thread score of 974 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3218 indicate substantial headroom for the game's CPU-bound tasks. However, the GPU's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 compute become the wall at higher resolutions.

Preset scaling within a single resolution also points to GPU saturation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 21 FPS, from Medium to High costs 17 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 3 FPS. The diminishing returns at Ultra suggest the GPU is nearing its limits even at 1080p. At 4K, the difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, indicating the GPU is fully saturated and additional graphical fidelity does not meaningfully change the frame rate.

The CPU's role is more visible at lower resolutions. The jump from 1080p Low at 92 FPS to 1440p Low at 74 FPS shows the GPU beginning to take over as the limiting factor. The fact that 1080p Medium hits 71 FPS while 1440p Low hits 74 FPS indicates that the CPU can still push decent frame rates when the GPU is not overwhelmed, but the overall ceiling remains GPU-bound.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system performs best. Low settings produce an average of 92 FPS with no recorded floor or ceiling values. Medium settings deliver 71 FPS on average, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. High settings drop to 54 FPS, and Ultra settings settle at 51 FPS. The Medium preset provides the only complete min/max data at this resolution, showing a 21 FPS spread between the lowest and highest recorded frames.

At 2560x1440, performance steps down noticeably. Low settings average 74 FPS. Medium settings average 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS. High settings fall to 43 FPS, and Ultra settings land at 41 FPS. The 1440p Medium range spans 17 FPS, slightly narrower than the 1080p Medium range, which suggests the GPU is working harder to maintain consistency at the higher pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 55 FPS. Medium settings average 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS. High settings drop to 32 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 30 FPS. The 4K Medium range spans 13 FPS, the tightest of all recorded ranges, indicating the GPU is pinned near its maximum output with little variance possible.

The pattern across all three resolutions shows a consistent hierarchy: Low performs best, followed by Medium, then High, then Ultra. The gaps between presets shrink as resolution increases. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 41 FPS. At 1440p, that spread narrows to 33 FPS. At 4K, the spread is just 25 FPS. This compression confirms that the GPU becomes the binding constraint at higher resolutions, leaving less headroom for preset adjustments to change performance.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the configuration in the lower third of the database, roughly at the 78.4th percentile from the bottom, meaning about 78 percent of tested combos perform better. The rank reflects the GPU's age and limited memory capacity rather than any deficiency in the CPU.

The CPU itself is a strong performer. Its average benchmark score of 24964 places it at the 77th percentile among all processors. The GPU, by contrast, averages 15290 in its benchmark suite and sits at the 58th percentile among all graphics cards. This gap in relative standing explains why the combo ranks low despite having a capable processor. The GPU simply cannot keep pace with the CPU's potential in a graphically demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The combo's rank also reflects the game's unique demands. Flight simulators tend to stress both CPU and GPU heavily, but the recorded FPS values show the GPU hitting its ceiling first. At 4K Ultra, the 30 FPS average suggests the GPU is completely saturated. Even at 1080p Ultra, the 51 FPS average shows the GPU limiting performance, as the CPU has proven it can push well beyond 90 FPS at lower settings.

Within the database, this combo sits closer to the bottom than the top, but it is not the worst configuration tested. The 802 combos ranked below it likely feature older or weaker GPUs. For a 1080p gamer willing to compromise on settings, this hardware still delivers playable results, but it does not compete with modern midrange or high-end configurations.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935, just 0.1 percent below the Ryzen 5 7500F's 24964 average. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25005, a 0.2 percent advantage. The Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24911, a 0.2 percent deficit. The Intel Core 5 210H scores 24872, a 0.4 percent gap. Any of these processors would behave nearly identically in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as their benchmark scores fall within a 0.6 percent band of each other.

On the GPU side, the nearest rivals are strikingly close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 scores 15283, effectively tied with the RTX 2060's 15290, a 0 percent difference. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, just 0.1 percent lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, a 0.6 percent deficit. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, a 0.8 percent gap. These four graphics cards would deliver nearly indistinguishable frame rates in this game.

The practical implication is that swapping the CPU for any of its four nearest rivals, or swapping the GPU for any of its four nearest rivals, would not meaningfully change the measured FPS. A system with an Intel Core i7-11850H and an AMD Radeon RX 7600, for example, would land within roughly 1 percent of the Ryzen 5 7500F and RTX 2060 combination. Users with any of these alternative parts can expect similar playability characteristics at each resolution and preset.

The close clustering of these rivals also highlights the maturity of both the CPU and GPU market segments at this performance tier. The Ryzen 5 7500F sits in a dense field of processors delivering essentially identical compute performance, and the RTX 2060 occupies a similar position among graphics cards.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only at specific resolutions and presets. The verdict by resolution is clear. At 3840x2160, no settings reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best recorded average is 55 FPS at Low settings, which falls short. At 2560x1440, only Low settings clear 60 FPS, with a 74 FPS average. At 1920x1080, both Low and Medium clear 60 FPS, with Medium delivering 71 FPS on average.

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS in the database. For a flight simulator, where smooth camera panning and detailed scenery rendering matter, staying above this threshold is important. The system meets this requirement at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and at 1440p with Low settings only. At 4K, the system cannot maintain 60 FPS under any preset.

The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this hardware. Medium settings at 1080p provide a 71 FPS average with a 61 FPS minimum, ensuring that even the heaviest scenes stay above the playable line. For players who prefer higher visual fidelity, High settings at 1080p drop to 54 FPS, which may still be acceptable for less demanding scenarios but risks dipping below the threshold during dense scenery or complex weather.

At 1440p, the system is borderline. Low settings give a comfortable 74 FPS, but Medium drops to 58 FPS, just below the threshold. The 49 FPS minimum at Medium means significant dips during intense moments. Players with 1440p monitors should stick to Low settings for a consistent experience. At 4K, the system is not viable for smooth play, as even Low settings average only 55 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The highest average is 55 FPS at Low settings, but this still falls below the playable threshold. The database records no best settings for this resolution because none qualify as playable.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is Low, which delivers 74 FPS on average. This provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings at 58 FPS do not qualify, and High and Ultra are further behind at 43 FPS and 41 FPS respectively. For 1440p users, Low is the only viable choice.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Medium, with an average of 71 FPS. The minimum recorded FPS is 61, which stays above the threshold. Low settings also qualify at 92 FPS, but Medium offers a better balance of visual quality and performance. High settings at 54 FPS and Ultra at 51 FPS fall short of the playable standard.

For players prioritizing visual fidelity over raw frame rate, the data shows that High settings at 1080p still produce a 54 FPS average, which may be tolerable for slower flight phases. However, the database's playable threshold is strict at 60 FPS, and only Low and Medium at 1080p, plus Low at 1440p, meet that standard. The system is best suited for 1080p gaming with Medium presets, offering the highest visual quality while maintaining a stable frame rate above the playable line.