Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a demanding workload that scales significantly across the three tested resolutions. At 1080p with the Low preset, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination delivers an average of 164 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops this to 133 FPS, a reduction of roughly 19%, while 4K Low yields 98 FPS, another 26% decrease from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern indicates that at lower resolutions, the frame rate is largely dictated by the CPU’s ability to feed the GPU, as the gap between 1080p and 1440p is smaller than the jump to 4K.

The Medium preset tells a more consistent story. At 1080p, the average is 128 FPS, with a minimum of 109 FPS and a maximum of 147 FPS. At 1440p, the average falls to 103 FPS (min 88, max 119), and at 4K it settles at 76 FPS (min 65, max 88). The frame time consistency, as evidenced by the narrower min-max ranges, suggests that the Medium preset balances load between CPU and GPU effectively. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.5%, and from 1440p to 4K is 26.2%, showing a progressive shift toward GPU limitation.

High settings amplify this trend. The 1080p High average is 96 FPS, 1440p High is 78 FPS, and 4K High is 57 FPS. The percentage drops are 18.8% and 26.9% respectively. Notably, the 4K High result at 57 FPS is just below the 60 FPS threshold many consider smooth for flight simulation. Ultra settings are the most demanding, with 1080p Ultra at 92 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 74 FPS, and 4K Ultra at 55 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K on Ultra is 25.7%, nearly identical to High, indicating that the GPU is the primary constraint at these higher presets.

The data reveals a clear division: below 4K, the CPU has more headroom, but at 4K, especially with High and Ultra presets, the GPU workload dominates. The 4K Ultra result of 55 FPS is the lowest measured across all configurations, while 1080p Low at 164 FPS is the highest. For users targeting 4K, the Medium preset at 76 FPS offers a playable experience, whereas High and Ultra dip below 60 FPS, suggesting that the GPU’s 16 GB VRAM and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are being saturated by the higher fidelity textures and draw distances.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, is the dominant factor in this game’s higher-resolution performance. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s, which is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator’s vast terrain streaming. The GPU’s base clock is 1660 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. These clock speeds allow the card to maintain high throughput, but the data shows that at Ultra settings, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, with 4K Ultra dropping to 55 FPS.

The GPU’s benchmark scores contextualize its performance. It achieves a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7260, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 65879, and a Passmark G3D score of 26795. These numbers place it in the 55th percentile among all GPUs, which is moderate, but its nearest rivals in the database are notably older or lower-tier parts like the AMD Radeon HD 7770M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, with deltaPct values of 0.1% and 0.2% respectively. This suggests that while the RX 9070 XT scores well in synthetic tests, its real-world performance in this specific title is what matters, and the measured FPS indicates it is capable but not exceptional at 4K Ultra.

The GPU’s 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs contribute to a pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 48.66 TFLOPS is substantial, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s CPU-heavy simulation logic means the GPU is not always the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the 164 FPS result suggests the CPU is holding the GPU back, as the GPU could likely render more frames if the CPU could supply them faster. Conversely, at 4K Ultra, the 55 FPS result shows the GPU struggling with the increased pixel count and geometric complexity.

The VRAM capacity of 16 GB is a key asset. At 4K with High settings, the game uses significant memory for textures and scenery, and the 57 FPS average indicates the GPU is managing the load, but not with much headroom. The 4K Medium result of 76 FPS shows that reducing settings from High to Medium yields a 33% improvement, which is more pronounced than the 18% improvement from Ultra to High at the same resolution. This suggests that the Ultra preset introduces specific effects that disproportionately strain the GPU, such as enhanced shadows or volumetric clouds.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the combo achieves 128 FPS with a minimum of 109 FPS, ensuring smooth gameplay even in dense urban areas or during rapid descents. At 1440p Medium, the average is 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS, which remains comfortable for most displays. Even at 4K Medium, the average of 76 FPS with a minimum of 65 FPS is playable, though users with 60 Hz monitors will see consistent frame delivery.

The High preset is a viable alternative for those prioritizing visuals over raw frame rate. At 1440p High, the 78 FPS average is still above 60 FPS, making it suitable for high-refresh-rate monitors. However, at 4K High, the 57 FPS average dips below the 60 FPS line, which may cause noticeable stutter in a game where smooth panning is essential. The Ultra preset, while offering the best visuals, is only recommended for 1080p displays, where the 92 FPS average remains fluid. At 1440p Ultra, the 74 FPS average is borderline, and at 4K Ultra, the 55 FPS result is below the playability threshold for most users.

The Low preset, while delivering the highest frame rates (164 FPS at 1080p, 133 FPS at 1440p, 98 FPS at 4K), sacrifices too much detail for a flight simulator where situational awareness is critical. The data shows that the jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 22% performance at 1080p (from 164 to 128 FPS) but provides a substantial visual upgrade. For most users, Medium is the sweet spot, as it maintains frame rates above 76 FPS even at 4K, while High and Ultra offer diminishing returns for the performance hit.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT pairing ranks 641st out of 2996 combos. This places it in the top 21% of all tested systems, which is respectable but not elite. The rank reflects the balance between the CPU and GPU; the Ryzen 5 7400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is a mid-range processor, while the RX 9070 XT is a high-end GPU. The combination’s performance is thus limited by the CPU in lower resolutions and by the GPU in higher resolutions, as evidenced by the FPS scaling.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 32750 places it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i5-14600T (deltaPct 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (deltaPct -0.2%). The GPU’s average benchmark score of 13543 places it in the 55th percentile, with nearest rivals being significantly older parts. This disparity in percentile rankings—CPU in the 83rd, GPU in the 55th—suggests that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing relative to its peers. However, the combo’s rank of 641 out of 2996 indicates that many other systems with more balanced components outperform it.

The rank is influenced by the fact that many combos in the database likely use higher-end CPUs like the Ryzen 9 or Core i9 series, which can better feed the RX 9070 XT at 1080p. At 4K, where the GPU is the bottleneck, the combo’s performance is more competitive, but the overall rank is dragged down by the sub-60 FPS results at 4K Ultra. Users seeking a higher rank would need a more powerful CPU to push frame rates at lower resolutions, or a more powerful GPU to maintain higher FPS at 4K.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, part of the 7000 series based on Zen 4 architecture (Raphael), has 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB per-core L2 cache are typical for the Ryzen 5 lineup. The CPU’s benchmark scores are strong for its class: Cinebench R23 multicore of 21765, single-core of 3072, and Passmark multithread of 25645. These scores place it in the 83rd percentile, with the nearest rival being the Intel Core i5-14600T with a deltaPct of 0.1%, indicating nearly identical average performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the simulation logic, including physics, AI traffic, and world generation. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the CPU is the limiting factor, as the 164 FPS result is likely near the CPU’s maximum frame delivery capability. At 1080p Medium, the 128 FPS average suggests the CPU is still providing enough throughput, but the GPU is becoming more involved. The single-thread performance, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3072, is critical for this game, as many simulation tasks are single-threaded. The boost clock of 4.70 GHz helps in these scenarios.

The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for the game’s multithreaded aspects, but the data indicates that at 4K, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The 4K Low result of 98 FPS is only 40% lower than the 1080p Low result of 164 FPS, while the 4K Ultra result of 55 FPS is 40% lower than the 1080p Ultra result of 92 FPS. This consistent scaling suggests that the CPU’s performance is adequate, and the GPU’s rendering load is what drives the frame rate down at higher resolutions. The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 is sufficient for the game’s data streaming needs.

The CPU’s 65W TDP and 5nm process node (TSMC) mean it runs efficiently, but this is not directly reflected in the game’s frame rates. The Passmark physics score of 1660 and data compression score of 289999 indicate strong computational throughput, which aids in the game’s background tasks. However, the combo’s rank of 641 out of 2996 suggests that while the CPU is capable, it is not top-tier for this game, as systems with more cores (e.g., 8-core or 16-core CPUs) may provide better minimum frame rates in complex scenarios. The CPU’s release date of January 2025 and launch MSRP of $229 position it as a mid-range option, and the data confirms it delivers mid-range performance in this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 164, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset. This is the only configuration that exceeds 160 FPS, with the next highest being 133 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Does this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but only on the Medium and Low presets. At 4K Medium, the average is 76 FPS with a minimum of 65 FPS, while at 4K Low, the average is 98 FPS. The High preset averages 57 FPS, and Ultra averages 55 FPS, both below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-14600T (score 32707) and 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (score 32697). It is 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (score 32812).

Q: What is the GPU’s percentile ranking among all GPUs, and why does it matter?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is in the 55th percentile among all GPUs, meaning it outperforms 55% of them in average benchmark scores. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 7770M with a deltaPct of 0.1%, which is a much older and lower-tier GPU, indicating that the RX 9070 XT’s synthetic scores are not exceptional relative to its class.

Q: Which preset provides the best minimum FPS at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset provides the best minimum FPS at 1440p, with a measured minimum of 88 FPS. The Low and High presets do not have listed minimum values, but the Medium preset’s min-max range of 88-119 FPS shows good consistency.

Q: How does the combo’s rank in this game compare to the total number of tested combos?

A: The combo ranks 641st out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 21.4% of systems. This rank is driven by the CPU’s strong 83rd percentile performance and the GPU’s more modest 55th percentile performance, with the 4K Ultra result of 55 FPS being a notable weakness.