Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 combination presents a compelling case for high-fidelity flight simulation. Benchmark data for Microsoft Flight Simulator shows this pairing is capable of delivering smooth gameplay across most settings, though the demanding nature of 4K resolution pushes the system to its limits. The measured frame rates reveal a clear scaling pattern, with the RTX 5070’s 12 GB of GDDR7 memory and the Ryzen 7 9700F’s 8-core Zen 5 architecture working in tandem to produce strong results. The data shows that 1080p and 1440p are fully playable at every preset, while 4K requires careful settings selection to maintain a stable 60 FPS. Below is a detailed breakdown of the pair’s performance, alternatives, and optimal configurations.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, at 4K the system maintains 60 FPS or higher on High, Medium, and Low settings. The High preset averages 61 FPS, Medium averages 81 FPS, and Low averages 105 FPS. However, the Ultra preset at 4K falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold with an average of 58 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p gameplay?

A: At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is the best choice, achieving an average of 79 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. This is a significant margin over High (83 FPS) and Medium (110 FPS), making Ultra the most demanding playable option at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69,996, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. It is 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,163) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515), making them extremely close in performance.

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards?

A: The RTX 5070 sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40,377. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 580, which scores 40,318, a difference of only 0.1%.

Q: At which resolution does the system show the most significant frame rate drop between presets?

A: At 1920x1080, the frame rate falls from 176 FPS on Low to 98 FPS on Ultra, a drop of 78 FPS. This is a larger absolute drop than at 1440p (142 FPS to 79 FPS) or 4K (105 FPS to 58 FPS), indicating that the CPU and GPU are both heavily taxed by the Ultra preset even at lower resolutions.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: The combination ranks 729th out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the top 20% of all configurations. This is a strong position, suggesting it outperforms the vast majority of systems tested with this game.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark data shows that the performance of this CPU-GPU pair is closely matched by several other components. For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69,875, which is only 0.2% lower than the Ryzen 7 9700F’s 69,996. Similarly, the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70,163, a 0.2% difference, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69,515, a 0.7% gap. These processors would deliver nearly identical compute performance in this game, meaning users with those chips should see very similar frame rates in scenarios where the CPU is the limiting factor.

On the GPU side, the nearest rivals are less well-known entities. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has an average score of 40,318, almost identical to the RTX 5070’s 40,377 (0.1% difference). The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40,063 (0.8% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 40,870 (1.2% higher). For flight simulators, which rely heavily on geometry and draw calls, these cards would behave similarly to the RTX 5070 in terms of raw raster performance. However, the RTX 5070’s newer Blackwell architecture and 12 GB of GDDR7 memory would likely provide better performance in specific scenarios, though the aggregate scores suggest a close match.

The data implies that if a user were to swap the RTX 5070 for a Radeon Pro 580, the difference in frame rates would be negligible, potentially within a single FPS. Similarly, replacing the Ryzen 7 9700F with an i7-14700KF would result in a performance shift of less than 1%, meaning the overall gameplay experience would be indistinguishable in terms of average FPS. This highlights that the system’s performance is well-bounded, and users with these alternative parts should expect nearly identical outcomes in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals the distinct roles of the CPU and GPU at each resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is heavily GPU-bound at lower settings. The Low preset averages 176 FPS, while the Medium preset drops to 137 FPS, and High to 103 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 39 FPS loss, indicating the GPU is the primary driver for these changes. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 98 FPS, which is only 5 FPS lower than High, suggesting the CPU begins to play a more significant role in the highest settings due to the increased draw calls and simulation complexity.

At 2560x1440, the scaling shows a more balanced workload. The Low preset runs at 142 FPS, Medium at 110 FPS, High at 83 FPS, and Ultra at 79 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 4 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 27 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset is more heavily optimized for the GPU, but the CPU is still able to provide the necessary physics and AI calculations. At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck. The Low preset at 4K averages 105 FPS, but the Medium preset drops to 81 FPS, and High to 61 FPS. The Ultra preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold at 58 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, indicating that the 4K resolution is saturating the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth.

The data indicates that the Ryzen 7 9700F is sufficient to feed the RTX 5070 at all resolutions, as the 4K results show a clear GPU limitation. The CPU’s multi-threaded score of 36,470 (in Passmark) suggests it can handle the simulation’s single-threaded tasks, likely related to flight physics and world generation. The GPU’s role is dominant at higher resolutions, with the 4K Ultra preset revealing a 3 FPS drop from High, which is the cost of the most demanding settings. Overall, the CPU is never the limiting factor, allowing the GPU to be the primary determinant of performance, particularly at 1440p and 4K.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator with excellent performance. The verdict by resolution shows that at 3840x2160, the system is capable of maintaining an average of 61 FPS on the High preset, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Low preset averages 105 FPS, and Medium averages 81 FPS, both well above 60 FPS. However, the Ultra preset at 4K is not playable, as its average of 58 FPS falls below the threshold.

At 2560x1440, all four presets are playable. The Ultra preset runs at an average of 79 FPS, which is the best setting for this resolution. The High preset averages 83 FPS, Medium 110 FPS, and Low 142 FPS. At 1920x1080, the system also runs all presets, with Ultra averaging 98 FPS, High 103 FPS, Medium 137 FPS, and Low 176 FPS. This indicates that the system is fully capable of delivering a smooth experience at 1080p and 1440p at the highest settings, and at 4K, users must disable the Ultra preset to maintain a stable frame rate.

The data suggests that 4K is only viable with the High preset, as the 61 FPS average is a close call. The Medium preset offers a more comfortable margin with 81 FPS, but the High preset is the most visually demanding playable option. For users with a 4K display, the High preset will provide the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, while those with 1440p or 1080p displays can enjoy the full Ultra experience without compromise.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 ranks 729th out of 3,714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 20% of all systems tested. This is a strong result, suggesting that the system outperforms the vast majority of other configurations. The data indicates that this ranking is a reflection of the balanced hardware, where the CPU and GPU are well-matched for the game’s demands.

While the exact scores of the combos ranked nearby are not provided, the rank of 729 out of 3,714 suggests that the system is in the upper echelon of performance. This is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows the system is capable of running the game at high settings across all resolutions. The high percentile of the CPU (94th) and the solid GPU percentile (82nd) contribute to this high ranking, indicating that the system is not leaving performance on the table.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS varies by resolution. At 4K, the High preset is the best choice, delivering an average of 61 FPS. This is the highest quality setting that remains playable, as the Ultra preset drops to 58 FPS. At 1440p, the Ultra preset is the best, with an average of 79 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset can be run at both 1440p and 1080p, with 1080p Ultra averaging 98 FPS. The 1080p Ultra setting is the best overall, as it provides the highest visual quality while still maintaining a comfortable frame rate.

The data shows the system is well-suited for high refresh rate monitors at 1080p and 1440p, as the 98 FPS and 79 FPS averages provide enough headroom for smooth gameplay. At 4K, the High preset is the sweet spot, but users who want to maximize quality should be aware of the 3 FPS drop to Ultra. The measured averages confirm that the system is best with a 1440p display, where it can run every preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system’s performance across all combinations of resolution and settings. Here is the exact breakdown:

• 3840x2160 (4K):
• Low: Average 105 FPS (no min/max data)
• Medium: Average 81 FPS, with a minimum of 69 and a maximum of 94 FPS.
• High: Average 61 FPS (no min/max data)
• Ultra: Average 58 FPS (no min/max data)

• 2560x1440 (1440p):
• Low: Average 142 FPS (no min/max data)
• Medium: Average 110 FPS, with a minimum of 94 and a maximum of 127 FPS.
• High: Average 83 FPS (no min/max data)
• Ultra: Average 79 FPS (no min/max data)

• 1920x1080 (1080p):
• Low: Average 176 FPS (no min/max data)
• Medium: Average 137 FPS, with a minimum of 116 and a maximum of 157 FPS.
• High: Average 103 FPS (no min/max data)
• Ultra: Average 98 FPS (no min/max data)

The min/max data is only available for the Medium preset at each resolution, providing a look at the frame time variance. At 4K Medium, the range is 69-94 FPS, indicating a 25 FPS variance. At 1440p Medium, the range is 94-127 FPS, a 33 FPS variance. At 1080p Medium, the range is 116-157 FPS, a 41 FPS variance. This suggests that the variance increases as resolution decreases, possibly due to CPU involvement. The average FPS values are consistent with the trend of the GPU being the primary bottleneck at 4K, as the gap between Low and Ultra is 47 FPS. The data overall confirms that the system is highly capable, with the 1080p Low preset reaching the near 200 FPS mark, making it ideal for high refresh rate gaming.