Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 7400F + AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT

This combo pairs AMD's 6-core Zen 4 desktop processor with the Radeon RX 6750 XT, a 12 GB RDNA 2 graphics card. The data shows a system that handles Microsoft Flight Simulator's demanding world-streaming workload with playable frame rates at most settings, though the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck at higher resolutions and quality presets. The combo ranks 1304th out of 2996 tested configurations, placing it in the upper-middle portion of the database.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 127 fps average, which drops to 102 fps at 1440p Low, and further to 75 fps at 4K Low. That represents a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The scaling pattern shifts at higher presets: at High settings, 1080p yields 74 fps, 1440p yields 60 fps, and 4K yields 44 fps — a 41% drop from 1080p to 4K as well, but with much lower absolute numbers.

The gap between Low and Ultra at each resolution tells a clearer story about the limiting component. At 1080p, the difference between Low (127 fps) and Ultra (71 fps) is 56 fps. At 4K, that same spread narrows to 33 fps (75 fps Low versus 42 fps Ultra). This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions indicates the GPU is hitting its throughput ceiling. The RX 6750 XT's 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are being saturated by 4K pixel throughput, making additional settings changes less impactful.

The frame time data from Medium settings reinforces this. At 1080p Medium, the system reports 84 fps minimum and 113 fps maximum, a 29 fps spread. At 1440p Medium, the spread is 68 to 91 fps, a 23 fps range. At 4K Medium, it narrows to 50 to 67 fps, a 17 fps range. Tighter frame time variance at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is consistently maxed out rather than experiencing intermittent stalls — the workload is steady and heavy, not spiky.

Interestingly, the CPU does not appear to be the primary limiter at any resolution. The Ryzen 5 7400F's 6 cores and 12 threads with a 4.70 GHz boost clock provide enough headroom that even at 1080p Low, where the GPU has the least work, the system still reaches 127 fps. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the 1080p Low figure to plateau rather than scale proportionally with resolution reductions.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but with compromises. At 4K High, the average is 44 fps; at 4K Medium, it's 59 fps with a 50 fps minimum. For smoother 4K play, Low settings yield 75 fps average, though visual fidelity suffers significantly.

Q: What settings preset gives the best balance of quality and performance at 1440p?

A: Medium at 1440p delivers 79 fps average with a 68 fps minimum, which is smooth for a flight simulator. High drops to 60 fps, and Ultra falls to 57 fps. Medium offers the largest safety margin above 60 fps.

Q: Is the 1080p Ultra experience playable?

A: Yes, at 71 fps average. However, the jump from High (74 fps) to Ultra (71 fps) is only 3 fps, suggesting diminishing returns. High at 1080p provides nearly identical performance with less GPU load.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F scores 32750 in the average benchmark, placing it 0.1% above the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707), 0.2% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697), and 0.3% above the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662). It trails the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812) by 0.2%.

Q: What is the GPU's benchmark standing relative to others?

A: The RX 6750 XT scores 26011 on average, which is 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (25891), 0.6% above the AMD FirePro W7100 (25856), 0.7% above the AMD FirePro D700 (25842), and 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25740). It sits in the 71st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the 12 GB VRAM limit performance at 4K?

A: The data does not show VRAM capacity as a limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the system still achieves 42 fps average, and 4K Medium maintains a 50 fps minimum. Memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s appears sufficient for this game's 4K demands at these settings.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz provide solid single-thread performance, which matters for flight simulation's main thread workload. In Cinebench R23, it scores 3072 single-core and 21765 multi-core, while PassMark single-thread reaches 3689 and multithread 25645.

The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates it performs well above the median processor. Its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores are all within 0.3% of its 32750 average, meaning this processor sits in a tight competitive cluster. The 32 MB shared L3 cache helps with the game's asset streaming, and the dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth provides adequate data throughput.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is to handle flight physics, weather simulation, and terrain loading. The data suggests the 7400F handles these tasks without becoming the primary bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the 127 fps result is high enough that even a faster CPU would likely not push this GPU much further. At 4K Ultra, the 42 fps result is so GPU-bound that CPU differences would be negligible.

The 65 W TDP and AM5 socket compatibility make this a practical choice for builders who want modern platform features without excessive power draw. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking headroom, though the data here reflects stock performance. The 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die indicate a dense, efficient design that keeps thermals manageable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows a clear progression across presets. Low delivers 127 fps average, Medium 99 fps (84 min, 113 max), High 74 fps, and Ultra 71 fps. The step from Low to Medium is a 28 fps drop, while Medium to High costs 25 fps, and High to Ultra only 3 fps. This pattern suggests the Ultra preset adds visual features that are relatively cheap on the GPU at this resolution, while Low to High transitions involve more significant rendering changes.

At 2560x1440, the numbers shift downward but maintain the same shape. Low produces 102 fps, Medium 79 fps (68 min, 91 max), High 60 fps, and Ultra 57 fps. The Medium preset's 68 fps minimum ensures it stays above the 60 fps threshold most of the time, making it the safest choice for smooth gameplay at this resolution. The jump from High to Ultra is again minimal at only 3 fps, indicating the Ultra preset's extra effects are not heavily taxing at 1440p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limits become apparent. Low yields 75 fps, Medium 59 fps (50 min, 67 max), High 44 fps, and Ultra 42 fps. The Medium preset's 50 fps minimum is the only sub-60 result among the minimums, but the average stays playable. The difference between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 fps, confirming that the GPU is fully saturated at 4K and additional settings have diminishing returns.

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all three resolutions. This reveals how frame time consistency scales: at 1080p, the 84-113 fps range represents a 25% spread from minimum to maximum; at 1440p, 68-91 fps is a 25% spread; at 4K, 50-67 fps is a 25% spread. The consistent relative variance suggests the workload's complexity scales proportionally with pixel count rather than introducing new bottlenecks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of Ryzen 5 7400F and RX 6750 XT ranks 1304th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 43rd percentile of all configurations, meaning roughly 43% of tested combos perform worse and 57% perform better. Given that the CPU sits in the 83rd percentile and the GPU in the 71st percentile of their respective component benchmarks, the combo's mid-pack ranking reflects the game's demanding nature rather than a weak pairing.

The gap between component percentiles and combo ranking suggests Microsoft Flight Simulator is more demanding than average on the GPU relative to other games. A GPU in the 71st percentile producing a combo result in the 43rd percentile indicates this game pushes graphics hardware harder than most titles. The CPU's strong 83rd percentile ranking helps, but the GPU's mid-tier position limits the overall result.

Compared to the GPU's nearest rivals, the RX 6750 XT's 1.1% lead over the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile in aggregate benchmarks does not translate to a dramatic advantage in this game's measured results. The combo ranking reflects real-world gaming performance rather than synthetic benchmarks, and flight simulation's unique rendering workload can diverge from standard test patterns. The 12 GB GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus width provide sufficient capacity and bandwidth for this game's textures and geometry.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, High settings deliver 74 fps average and represent the best quality-to-performance ratio. The 3 fps gain from Ultra (71 fps) is not worth the additional GPU load, and Low (127 fps) and Medium (99 fps) leave performance on the table when the system can handle higher quality. Players prioritizing maximum smoothness might choose Medium at 99 fps, but the 74 fps High result is already well above playable thresholds.

At 1440p, Medium is the clear recommendation. The 79 fps average with a 68 fps minimum provides a comfortable margin above 60 fps, while High drops to 60 fps and Ultra to 57 fps — both risking dips below smooth gameplay. Low at 102 fps is viable for competitive or maximum-smoothness scenarios, but the visual compromise is significant. Medium at 1440p appears to be the sweet spot where the RX 6750 XT's 13.31 TFLOPS compute and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are used efficiently.

For 4K, the choice depends on tolerance for lower frame rates. Medium at 59 fps average with a 50 fps minimum is the highest preset that stays near 60 fps, though the minimum dips below it. Low at 75 fps offers smoother motion but sacrifices substantial visual quality in a game where scenery detail is central to the experience. High (44 fps) and Ultra (42 fps) are playable for those who prioritize visuals over smoothness, but they fall below the 60 fps threshold that most flight sim enthusiasts prefer. Given that the Medium to High drop at 4K is 15 fps, staying at Medium is the pragmatic choice for maintaining responsiveness.

The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K requiring a settings compromise. The 44 fps at 4K High and 42 fps at 4K Ultra show that the GPU's 64 ROPs and 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for full-fidelity 4K in this title. Players with 4K displays should either accept Medium settings or consider this a limitation of the hardware pairing.