Microsoft Flight Simulator

This combination of an AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers exceptional frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold at every resolution and preset combination tested. The data shows a system that is heavily GPU-limited at higher resolutions, with the CPU’s role diminishing as pixel count rises, yet still producing a remarkably smooth experience across the board.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this pairing covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). At 1920x1080, the system posts an average of 203.6 FPS on Low settings, 191 FPS on Medium, 139.4 FPS on High, and 131.6 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is small at just 12.6 FPS, whereas the jump from Medium to High costs 51.6 FPS, indicating a steep scaling curve in that range. High to Ultra is a more modest drop of 7.8 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end for this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 189.1 FPS on Low, 149.2 FPS on Medium, 112.4 FPS on High, and 108.5 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Medium penalty here is 39.9 FPS, much larger than at 1080p, which points to increased pixel workload affecting the transition. Medium to High drops 36.8 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 3.9 FPS, making Ultra essentially free relative to High at this resolution. The 1440p numbers are consistently lower than 1080p, with the largest absolute difference appearing at Low settings (14.5 FPS) and the smallest at Ultra (23.1 FPS difference, meaning 1080p Ultra is 23.1 FPS ahead of 1440p Ultra).

At 3840x2160, the averages fall to 142.6 FPS on Low, 107.3 FPS on Medium, 85 FPS on High, and 79.1 FPS on Ultra. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 35.3 FPS reduction, Medium to High is 22.3 FPS, and High to Ultra is just 5.9 FPS. Compared to 1440p, the 4K results show a substantial penalty across all presets: Low drops by 46.5 FPS, Medium by 41.9 FPS, High by 27.4 FPS, and Ultra by 29.4 FPS. Notably, the frame rate ceiling at 4K Ultra (79.1 FPS) still exceeds the 60 FPS threshold by a comfortable margin, while 4K Low (142.6 FPS) approaches what many monitors can display at 144Hz.

No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded in the data, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. All twelve measured scenarios stay well above 60 FPS, with the lowest average being 79.1 FPS at 4K Ultra. The highest average, 203.6 FPS at 1080p Low, suggests this hardware can push far beyond typical display refresh rates at lower resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate a clear division of labor between the Ryzen 5 7600 and the RTX 5090 depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the CPU’s influence is most pronounced. The difference between Low and Medium at 1080p is only 12.6 FPS, which is smaller than the equivalent gap at 1440p (39.9 FPS) or 4K (35.3 FPS), implying that at lower pixel counts the processor can keep up with the GPU’s output, and the main bottleneck shifts toward the graphics card as resolution rises.

The data shows that scaling resolution from 1080p to 1440p at the same preset costs between 14.5 FPS (Low) and 23.1 FPS (Ultra), while scaling from 1440p to 4K costs between 27.4 FPS (High) and 46.5 FPS (Low). This pattern—larger absolute drops at higher pixel counts—indicates that the RTX 5090 is the dominant performance driver at 4K, where its raw throughput dictates the frame rate. At 1080p, the Ryzen 5 7600’s six cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, appear sufficient to feed the GPU, as evidenced by the 203.6 FPS average on Low settings, which is close to what the GPU alone could deliver.

The CPU’s role is further illuminated by the preset scaling within each resolution. At 1080p, the Ultra preset (131.6 FPS) is only 5.8% slower than High (139.4 FPS), whereas at 4K the Ultra preset (79.1 FPS) is 6.9% slower than High (85 FPS). This consistency suggests that the CPU overhead per frame is relatively stable, but the GPU workload increases disproportionately with resolution, making the graphics card the limiting factor at higher pixel counts. For a flight simulator that often involves complex cockpit views and dense terrain, the data implies that the RTX 5090’s 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 512-bit bus provide ample bandwidth for 4K textures, while the Ryzen 5 7600’s 32 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (83.2 GB/s) are adequate for the simulation’s logic and asset streaming.

In practical terms, the CPU matters most at 1080p and Low settings, where the frame rate ceiling is highest. At 4K, the GPU’s performance is the primary factor, and the CPU’s contribution is secondary. The measured averages at 4K Ultra (79.1 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (131.6 FPS) show a 39.9% reduction, which correlates with the 4x pixel increase, underscoring the GPU-bound nature of high-resolution play.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals to the Ryzen 5 7600 are all within a narrow performance band. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores an average benchmark of 26274, which is 0.2% above the Ryzen 5 7600’s 26324 average. The AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 26402, a 0.3% delta in favor of the rival. The Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 26212, 0.4% below, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U scores 26187, 0.5% below. These deltas are negligible in real-world terms, so any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the RTX 5090, assuming similar clock behavior under load. The Ryzen 5 7600 sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, which places it above the median but not at the extreme top, yet the benchmark scores show that its nearest competitors are all within half a percent, meaning the choice among them would not meaningfully alter the FPS results.

On the GPU side, the RTX 5090’s nearest rivals are dominated by professional or mobile parts. The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB scores 79605, a 0.3% delta above the RTX 5090’s 79842 average. The Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB scores 79396, 0.6% above. The AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT scores 78940, 1.1% above, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 80959, 1.4% below. These deltas, while small, suggest that the RTX 5090’s performance is closely matched by these parts in synthetic benchmarks, but the game-specific FPS data shows the RTX 5090 excelling in this title. For a builder considering alternatives, the Tesla P100 parts lack the modern feature set of the RTX 5090 (such as ray tracing cores and DLSS support), but raw frame rates would be similar in non-ray-traced scenarios. The RX 6850M XT and Pro Vega 64X are mobile or workstation parts that would behave similarly in terms of average FPS, but the RTX 5090’s 32 GB VRAM and higher bandwidth (1.79 TB/s) give it an edge in texture-heavy scenes.

The percentile ranking of the RTX 5090 at 92% among all GPUs confirms it is a top-tier part, and the measured FPS in this game reflects that. The nearest rivals’ benchmark scores are within 1.4% of each other, so the practical difference in Microsoft Flight Simulator would be minimal, though the RTX 5090’s newer architecture (Blackwell 2.0) may offer better driver optimizations in this specific title.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at all tested resolutions and presets, with every configuration exceeding the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 3840x2160, the playable settings include High, Low, Medium, and Ultra, with the best settings being Ultra at an average of 79.1 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four presets are playable, and Ultra delivers 108.5 FPS. At 1920x1080, the same holds true, with Ultra averaging 131.6 FPS. The verdict data confirms that no resolution or preset dips below 60 FPS, and the lowest recorded average (4K Ultra) still provides a 31.8% margin above the playable threshold.

For users with high-refresh-rate monitors, the 1080p Low preset (203.6 FPS) and Medium preset (191 FPS) are suitable for 144Hz or 165Hz displays, while 1440p Low (189.1 FPS) also approaches that range. At 4K, the highest preset achievable is Ultra at 79.1 FPS, which is smooth for a flight simulator where frame pacing matters more than raw refresh. The data indicates that this combination is overkill for 1080p and 1440p, but well-suited for 4K gaming with maximum settings.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3714 tested combinations in this game, this pairing of the Ryzen 5 7600 and RTX 5090 ranks 78th. That places it in the top 2.1% of all tested configurations, which is an strong result given that the CPU is a mid-range part (78th percentile among all CPUs) and the GPU is a top-tier part (92nd percentile among all GPUs). The rank reflects the GPU’s dominant role in this simulation, as the RTX 5090’s high average benchmark score (79842) pulls the combo upward despite the CPU’s relatively modest standing. The 78th rank out of 3714 means that most combinations with higher-end CPUs (such as Ryzen 9 or Core i9 parts) would not necessarily outperform this setup in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the game’s frame rates are so heavily dependent on the graphics card at higher resolutions.

The gap between the combo’s rank and the CPU’s percentile (78th vs. 78th) is coincidental, but it shows that the CPU is not a bottleneck. In contrast, the GPU’s 92nd percentile aligns more closely with the combo’s top-2% rank, suggesting that the RTX 5090 is the primary driver of this system’s position. For context, the nearest CPU rivals (Ryzen 9 6900HX, Ryzen 7 7435HS, Core i9-11900KF, Ryzen 5 8540U) would likely yield similar ranks if paired with the same GPU, as their benchmark scores are within 0.5% of the Ryzen 5 7600.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which averages 79.1 FPS. This is the best possible setting for 4K, and the data shows that High (85 FPS) and Medium (107.3 FPS) are also viable, but Ultra offers the highest visual quality without dropping below the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, Ultra is again the best setting, averaging 108.5 FPS, which leaves ample headroom above 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, Ultra is the recommended choice, averaging 131.6 FPS, and even the most demanding preset is far above the threshold.

For each resolution, the difference between High and Ultra is relatively small: 6.1 FPS at 4K, 3.9 FPS at 1440p, and 7.8 FPS at 1080p. This suggests that enabling Ultra is almost always worth the minor frame rate cost, as the visual improvement in a flight simulator (which includes detailed terrain, aircraft models, and weather effects) likely outweighs the slight FPS reduction. The data does not include min or max FPS values, so the averages should be considered as the primary metric, but the consistent margins above 60 FPS indicate stable performance across all recommended settings.