Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 delivers a remarkably consistent experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with all tested resolution and preset combinations clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold. The data reveals a system that scales predictably across settings and resolutions, though the performance headroom at lower settings suggests the CPU and GPU combination is capable of handling even more demanding scenarios than those measured here.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the data shows a clear hierarchy across the four presets. The Low preset produces an average of 125 FPS, which is the highest measured at this resolution. The Medium preset delivers 97 FPS on average, with a minimum of 83 FPS and a maximum of 112 FPS. The High preset averages 73 FPS, while the Ultra preset drops to 70 FPS. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, suggesting that the visual fidelity gains from Ultra come at a relatively small performance cost at 4K.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates scale upward as expected, but the pattern between presets remains consistent. The Low preset reaches 170 FPS on average, while Medium hits 132 FPS with a minimum of 112 FPS and a maximum of 152 FPS. High averages 99 FPS, and Ultra delivers 95 FPS. The delta between High and Ultra here is 4 FPS, slightly larger than at 4K, which indicates the GPU is less of a bottleneck at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the system shows its full potential. The Low preset averages 211 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded across all tests. The Medium preset produces 164 FPS on average, with a minimum of 139 FPS and a maximum of 188 FPS. High averages 123 FPS, while Ultra maintains 117 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 94 FPS, revealing that the CPU and GPU combo has substantial headroom even at the most demanding visual settings.

The minimum FPS data points are only provided for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 4K, the minimum is 83 FPS; at 1440p, it is 112 FPS; and at 1080p, it is 139 FPS. These minimums suggest that even in the most demanding scenes, the system does not drop below comfortable playability levels, with the 1080p Medium minimum staying 79 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark data places the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F near several high-end rivals. The closest match is the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, which scores 69,875 compared to the 9700F’s 69,996, a delta of only 0.2 percent. The Intel Core i7-14700KF is nearly identical with a score of 70,163, representing a negative delta of 0.2 percent, meaning the 9700F is slightly slower. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X trails by 0.7 percent with a score of 69,515, while the Intel Core i7-14700K is 0.9 percent behind at 69,355. These deltas are all within one percent, indicating that the 9700F performs essentially on par with these alternatives in the CPU-centric aspects of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, the nearest rival is the RTX 4080 SUPER with a score of 54,209 versus the 4080’s 54,247, a negligible delta of 0.1 percent. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54,828, which is 1.1 percent higher, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB reaches 55,698, a 2.6 percent advantage. The AMD Radeon 8060S leads this group with 55,757, representing a 2.7 percent edge. These small percentage differences suggest that users with any of these GPUs would likely see very similar frame rates in this game, assuming the CPU and other system components are comparable.

The practical implication is that swapping the 9700F for any of its listed rivals would not meaningfully alter the measured FPS. Similarly, the RTX 4080’s performance is so close to the 4080 SUPER that the choice between them would come down to other factors beyond raw frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the CPU is likely the limiting factor, as evidenced by the relatively small FPS drop between Low and Ultra. The Low preset averages 211 FPS, while Ultra still manages 117 FPS — a gap of 94 FPS, but both are far above the 60 FPS threshold. This suggests that at 1080p, the GPU has enough headroom that the CPU becomes the primary constraint, especially in scenes with heavy simulation logic.

At 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take a more prominent role. The Low preset averages 170 FPS, which is 41 FPS lower than at 1080p, while Ultra drops from 117 FPS to 95 FPS, a 22 FPS reduction. The larger absolute drop at Low settings indicates that the GPU is becoming more stressed as resolution increases, but the system still maintains high frame rates across all presets.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. The Low preset falls to 125 FPS, down 86 FPS from 1080p, while Ultra drops to 70 FPS, down 47 FPS from 1080p. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is more pronounced for Low settings (45 FPS drop) than for Ultra (25 FPS drop), which indicates that at Ultra settings, the GPU is already working near its limits even at lower resolutions, leaving less room for resolution-based scaling.

The Medium preset data provides additional insight. At 1080p, the minimum FPS is 139; at 1440p, it is 112; and at 4K, it is 83. The minimum FPS drops by 27 FPS from 1080p to 1440p and by another 29 FPS from 1440p to 4K. This consistent degradation pattern suggests that both CPU and GPU are contributing to performance, with the GPU becoming more influential as resolution rises.

The Verdict

This PC can definitively run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates across all tested configurations. According to the verdict data, every resolution and preset combination clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 70 FPS, which is 10 FPS above the threshold. The High preset at 4K averages 73 FPS, providing a small buffer over Ultra. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 95 FPS, giving a 35 FPS margin. The 1920x1080 Ultra preset averages 117 FPS, which is 57 FPS above the threshold.

The verdict explicitly lists all four settings — High, Low, Medium, and Ultra — as playable at each resolution. This means even the most demanding preset at the highest resolution remains comfortably playable. The system does not require any compromises on visual quality to maintain smooth performance. The 4K Ultra average of 70 FPS is particularly noteworthy, as it demonstrates that this hardware can handle the game’s maximum settings without dipping below playability.

For users with high-refresh-rate monitors, the 1080p Medium preset’s minimum of 139 FPS and the 1440p Medium minimum of 112 FPS suggest that the system can sustain frame rates well beyond 60 FPS in most scenarios, even during demanding flight sequences.

Best Settings per Resolution

The data identifies the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS at each resolution, which is the Ultra preset in all three cases. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 70 FPS. This is the best possible visual quality with a 10 FPS margin above the playability threshold. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 95 FPS, providing a 35 FPS buffer. At 1920x1080, Ultra averages 117 FPS, which is 57 FPS above the threshold.

The High preset offers slightly better performance at each resolution, but the Ultra preset’s frame rates are already high enough that the visual quality improvement is worth the modest FPS cost. At 4K, the difference between High (73 FPS) and Ultra (70 FPS) is only 3 FPS, making Ultra the clear choice for users who prioritize image quality. At 1440p, the gap widens to 4 FPS (99 FPS vs 95 FPS), and at 1080p, it becomes 6 FPS (123 FPS vs 117 FPS). In every case, the Ultra preset remains well above 60 FPS, so there is no scenario where users must sacrifice visual quality to maintain playability.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. The measured data shows an average of 70 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which is above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo?

A: The maximum average FPS is 211, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F compare to the Intel Core i7-14700KF?

A: The 9700F scores 69,996 in the average benchmark, while the i7-14700KF scores 70,163, making the Intel chip 0.2 percent faster.

Q: Which GPU is the closest rival to the RTX 4080 in this game?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER is the nearest rival, with a score of 54,209 versus the RTX 4080’s 54,247, a delta of just 0.1 percent.

Q: Is there any preset that fails to reach 60 FPS?

A: No. All tested presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — at all three resolutions average above 60 FPS.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 1440p Medium settings?

A: The minimum FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings is 112, which is 52 FPS above the playability threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU-GPU pairing ranks 215 out of 3,714 total combinations. This places the system in the top 5.8 percent of all tested configurations, which is an impressive result given the game’s demanding nature. The rank reflects the balanced performance of the 9700F and RTX 4080, which together deliver high frame rates across all settings and resolutions.

The ranking also puts this combo ahead of the vast majority of alternatives, meaning users with this hardware are unlikely to encounter performance issues. The 215th position out of 3,714 represents a strong showing, particularly considering that the game’s simulation-heavy workload can stress CPUs more than typical titles. The fact that this combo achieves such a high rank suggests that both components are well-suited for the game’s requirements, with the CPU’s strong single-thread performance and the GPU’s high rasterization throughput working in concert. For users considering this hardware for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the data indicates that they would be getting a top-tier experience that only a small fraction of other tested systems can match.