Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 combination delivers a compelling performance profile for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its demanding rendering of vast landscapes and complex weather systems. The data places this pairing in the 262nd position out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the top 7% of all configurations analyzed. With average frame rates ranging from 70 FPS at 4K Ultra to 202 FPS at 1080p Low, this system demonstrates substantial headroom across all settings, though the specific balance between CPU and GPU workload shifts noticeably depending on resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each sit alongside closely matched rivals in their respective benchmark hierarchies. The Ryzen 5 7500F holds an average benchmark score of 24,964, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs tested. Its nearest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, which scores 25,005, a margin of just 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i7-11850H trails by a mere 0.1% with a score of 24,935, while the Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24,911 (0.2% lower) and the Intel Core 5 210H scores 24,872 (0.4% lower). These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios, meaning any of these processors would deliver statistically indistinguishable performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU.

For the graphics card, the RTX 4080 achieves an average benchmark score of 54,247, ranking in the 86th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rival is the RTX 4080 SUPER, which scores 54,209 — just 0.1% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54,828 (1.1% ahead), while the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB and Radeon 8060S score 55,698 and 55,757 respectively, putting them 2.6% and 2.7% ahead. These differences are minor enough that swapping to any of these cards would produce nearly identical frame rates in this flight simulator. The practical takeaway is that users seeking similar performance could consider these alternatives without expecting meaningful changes in playability metrics.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the specific context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU-GPU pairing achieves a combo rank of 262 out of 3,714 tested configurations. This places it firmly in the upper echelon of systems tested, with roughly 93% of all combinations ranking lower. The ranking reflects not just raw compute power but how well the two components cooperate under the game’s unique workload, which heavily stresses both single-thread performance and memory bandwidth alongside GPU rasterization.

The data suggests this combo sits in a sweet spot: the RTX 4080 provides ample graphics throughput while the Ryzen 5 7500F’s six Zen 4 cores handle the simulation’s physics and scenery streaming without becoming a bottleneck. At 1920x1080, the average frame rate of 202 FPS on Low settings indicates the CPU can feed the GPU effectively even at high framerates. The ranking percentile aligns closely with the GPU’s 86th percentile standing, hinting that the graphics card is the primary driver of overall position in this title, though the CPU’s 77th percentile still contributes meaningfully at lower resolutions where frame rates exceed 170 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, the system produces 125 FPS on Low, 97 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 83 and maximum of 112), 73 FPS on High, and 70 FPS on Ultra. The jump from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High costs 24 FPS, and High to Ultra only 3 FPS. This suggests the Ultra preset is well-optimized relative to High at 4K, with diminishing returns on the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, frame rates rise substantially: 170 FPS on Low, 132 FPS on Medium (min 112, max 152), 99 FPS on High, and 95 FPS on Ultra. The pattern repeats — a 38 FPS loss from Low to Medium, a 33 FPS loss from Medium to High, and a modest 4 FPS loss from High to Ultra. The 1440p results show the system has significant headroom even on the most demanding preset, with Ultra still clearing 90 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 202 FPS on Low, 164 FPS on Medium (min 139, max 188), 123 FPS on High, and 117 FPS on Ultra. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 25-30% of performance across all settings, while stepping from 1440p to 4K costs another 25-30%. Notably, the gap between Medium and High remains consistent at roughly 30 FPS across all resolutions, while the gap between High and Ultra shrinks from 3-4 FPS at higher resolutions to 6 FPS at 1080p.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator with playable performance at every resolution and preset combination available in the data. The verdict is unambiguous: all four settings — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — achieve average frame rates above the 60 FPS playability threshold at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. At 4K, the lowest average is 70 FPS on Ultra, which provides a comfortable margin above the threshold. At 1440p, the Ultra preset averages 95 FPS, and at 1080p, Ultra averages 117 FPS.

For users targeting a locked 60 FPS experience, even the most demanding configuration — 4K Ultra — exceeds this target by 10 FPS on average. The data does not include minimum frame rate readings for most settings, but the Medium preset at each resolution shows minimums of 83 FPS at 4K, 112 FPS at 1440p, and 139 FPS at 1080p, indicating that even the lowest recorded frames stay well above the playability threshold. This system does not merely meet the requirement — it clears it with substantial headroom, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate displays at 1440p and 1080p while remaining viable for 4K at maximum settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the measured average frame rate at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is exactly 70 FPS, which is 10 FPS above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: How does performance scale when lowering resolution from 4K to 1440p?

A: At Ultra settings, the average frame rate rises from 70 FPS at 4K to 95 FPS at 1440p, a 36% increase. At Medium settings, it rises from 97 FPS to 132 FPS, a similar proportional gain.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves?

A: The highest recorded average is 202 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 170 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Are there any settings where the system drops below 60 FPS?

A: No. Every resolution and settings combination in the measured data maintains an average frame rate above 60 FPS, with the lowest being 70 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 54,247 in average benchmark performance, which is 0.1% higher than the RTX 4080 SUPER's 54,209. This difference is negligible for gaming purposes.

Q: Does the CPU become a bottleneck at lower resolutions?

A: At 1080p, the system reaches 202 FPS on Low settings, suggesting the Ryzen 5 7500F can sustain very high frame rates. The CPU’s single-thread score of 3,218 in Cinebench R23 indicates strong per-core performance, which helps in simulation-heavy titles.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 70 FPS. Since all settings exceed the threshold at this resolution, users can select the highest visual fidelity without sacrificing playability. The Medium preset produces 97 FPS with a minimum of 83 FPS, offering a smoother experience for those who prioritize frame rate consistency over maximum detail.

At 2560x1440, Ultra remains the best choice, averaging 95 FPS. This provides a solid 35 FPS margin above the threshold while retaining all visual effects. The High preset at 99 FPS is nearly identical in performance, differing by only 4 FPS, so the choice between High and Ultra comes down to personal preference for specific visual elements like shadows and reflections.

At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 117 FPS, making it the clear recommendation. This is more than 55 FPS above the playability threshold, allowing for smooth gameplay on high-refresh-rate monitors. The gap between High (123 FPS) and Ultra (117 FPS) is just 6 FPS, so enabling the highest preset costs very little performance at this resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The workload distribution between the Ryzen 5 7500F and RTX 4080 shifts predictably with resolution. At 1920x1080, the system produces 202 FPS on Low settings, but this drops to 170 FPS at 1440p and 125 FPS at 4K — a 38% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This scaling indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises, since the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K while the frame rate only drops by roughly 38%. The CPU’s role is more pronounced at lower resolutions where frame rates exceed 170 FPS, as the processor must feed the GPU with enough draw calls to maintain those high numbers.

The RTX 4080’s 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth become critical at 4K Ultra, where the high-resolution textures and dense scenery of Microsoft Flight Simulator demand significant memory throughput. At 1080p, the GPU has excess capacity, evidenced by the 202 FPS Low result, but the CPU’s single-thread performance — measured at 974 in 3DMark single-thread and 3,218 in Cinebench R23 single-core — keeps pace without creating a bottleneck. The medium settings at each resolution show minimum frame rates that scale proportionally with resolution, confirming the GPU-led bottleneck at higher pixel counts.

The data also reveals that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution decreases. At 4K, the difference is 55 FPS (125 to 70); at 1440p it is 75 FPS (170 to 95); and at 1080p it is 85 FPS (202 to 117). This pattern suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU can push higher absolute frame rates, but the GPU’s rendering workload for Ultra settings becomes relatively more expensive, indicating both components contribute to the frame rate ceiling in a balanced manner across the tested range.