Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + AMD Radeon RX 6600

This combo ranks 1463rd out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database. The pairing of a strong 6-core Zen 4 processor with an entry-level RDNA 2 GPU produces playable but not impressive results, with the graphics card consistently acting as the primary constraint across resolutions. The data indicates this is a 1080p-focused configuration that can manage 60+ FPS only at reduced settings, while 1440p and 4K require significant compromises.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1463 out of 1795 tested combinations places it in roughly the 18th percentile of all tested pairings. This is a modest result for a system built around a CPU that sits in the 82nd percentile among all processors. The discrepancy between CPU percentile and combo rank highlights the GPU's limiting role in this pairing. The RX 6600's 69th percentile standing among GPUs drags the overall system down relative to what the processor alone could achieve.

Benchmark data shows the Ryzen 5 7500F produces an average score of 24993, which places it within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-11850H (24974) and 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (25057). The GPU's average benchmark score of 25235 puts it statistically tied with the AMD Radeon 890M (0% delta) and within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP. This near-parity with integrated graphics in synthetic tests underscores that the RX 6600 is the weak link in this configuration for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6600 features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs are paired with 28 ray accelerators, though the game's results suggest ray tracing is not a factor at these performance levels. The GPU's base clock of 1626 MHz, boost clock of 2491 MHz, and game clock of 2044 MHz are typical for the RDNA 2 architecture, but the 8 GB VRAM capacity becomes a concern at higher resolutions in a flight simulator that renders vast terrain detail.

The 7 nm Navi 23 chip contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, with a pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 8.928 TFLOPS is modest for 2020's most demanding flight sim. In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU scores 15096 in Passmark G3D and 80492 in Geekbench Vulkan, numbers that align with its mid-range positioning. The 0.5% delta to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti in average benchmark scores shows these cards are close in raw compute, but the 3060 Ti's advantage in memory bandwidth likely helps in this specific title.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 93.5 FPS, which drops to 71.7 FPS at 1440p Low (a 23% reduction) and further to 53.2 FPS at 4K Low (a 43% reduction from 1080p). This scaling curve indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as CPU-bound scenarios would show smaller drops when pixel count increases.

At High settings, the progression is 55.2 FPS at 1080p, 42.4 FPS at 1440p, and 34 FPS at 4K. The 4K result represents a 38% drop from 1080p, slightly less severe than at Low settings, suggesting that at higher quality presets other bottlenecks begin to emerge. The Ultra preset shows 48.6 FPS at 1080p, 43.9 FPS at 1440p, and 32.5 FPS at 4K — the 1440p to 4K drop is 26%, while the 1080p to 1440p drop is only 10%, indicating that at Ultra settings the CPU starts to contribute more significantly to frame time at lower resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is available and playable. Low settings produce 93.5 FPS average, Medium yields 70.4 FPS, High delivers 55.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 48.6 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 23.1 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 15.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 6.6 FPS. This diminishing returns curve suggests the GPU struggles more with the initial quality uplift than with the final preset tier.

At 2560x1440, Low settings still manage 71.7 FPS, but Medium falls to 56.3 FPS, High to 42.4 FPS, and Ultra to 43.9 FPS. Notably, Ultra at 1440p (43.9 FPS) outperforms High at 1440p (42.4 FPS) by 1.5 FPS, an anomaly that may indicate scene variance or driver behavior rather than a true performance inversion. The 1440p High result of 42.4 FPS is barely above the 4K Medium result of 40.5 FPS, showing that resolution scaling is not linear.

At 3840x2160, all presets fall below 60 FPS. Low delivers 53.2 FPS, Medium 40.5 FPS, High 34 FPS, and Ultra 32.5 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 4K is only 1.5 FPS, suggesting the GPU is fully saturated at this resolution regardless of quality preset. The 4K Low result of 53.2 FPS is the only 4K configuration that approaches smoothness, and even it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 60 FPS, the data shows only one configuration achieves this: 1080p Low with 93.5 FPS. The 1440p Low preset comes close at 71.7 FPS, and 1080p Medium at 70.4 FPS also clears the bar. No High or Ultra preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS, with the best High result being 55.2 FPS at 1080p.

The optimal balance appears to be 1080p Medium at 70.4 FPS, which provides a meaningful visual upgrade over Low while maintaining a comfortable frame rate. For players prioritizing visual fidelity, 1080p High at 55.2 FPS is the best High preset available, but it requires accepting a frame rate below 60. At 1440p, Medium at 56.3 FPS is the only preset that approaches playability, while 4K should be avoided entirely unless the user accepts 53.2 FPS at Low settings as the ceiling.

The 48.6 FPS Ultra result at 1080p shows that Ultra presets offer no playable advantage, as the 6.6 FPS gain from High to Ultra at 1080p comes at substantial visual cost to frame pacing. The data suggests 1080p Medium or 1440p Low as the primary recommendations, with 1080p High as a compromise for users who prioritize scenery detail.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 7500F brings 6 cores and 12 threads on the Zen 4 Raphael architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. Its 3.70 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost clock are strong for gaming, and the 32 MB shared L3 cache provides ample bandwidth for flight simulation workloads. The CPU's multi-threaded performance is robust: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 22799, while single-core reaches 3218. Geekbench results show 12686 multicore and 2759 single-core.

This processor sits in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with a 3dmark max threads score of 6379 and a single-thread score of 974. The Passmark multithread score of 26825 and single-thread score of 3841 further confirm its capability. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the 7500F's strong single-core performance (3218 in Cinebench R23 single-core) helps maintain playable frame rates even when the GPU is saturated.

The CPU's 65 TDP and DDR5 memory support (83.2 GB/s bandwidth) are modern standards, but the data shows the processor is rarely the bottleneck. The fact that 1080p Ultra (48.6 FPS) is only 6.6 FPS lower than 1080p High (55.2 FPS) while 4K Ultra (32.5 FPS) is only 1.5 FPS lower than 4K High (34 FPS) indicates the GPU is the limiting factor across the board. The CPU's 3dmark 8-thread score of 5372 versus 16-thread score of 6376 shows good scaling, but this game does not appear to leverage all 12 threads effectively given the strong single-thread results.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows 1080p is the only resolution where playable frame rates are achievable, with Low at 93.5 FPS, Medium at 70.4 FPS, and High at 55.2 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (71.7 FPS) and Medium (56.3 FPS) approach playable levels, while 4K tops out at 53.2 FPS on Low.

Q: Can this system run Ultra settings at any resolution?

A: Yes, but only at 1080p where it produces 48.6 FPS. At 1440p Ultra delivers 43.9 FPS, and at 4K Ultra falls to 32.5 FPS. None of these results reach 60 FPS, so Ultra is only suitable for users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness.

Q: How does the RX 6600 compare to its closest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 6600's average benchmark score of 25235 is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon 890M (0% delta), 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (25287), and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (25120). This indicates near-parity with integrated graphics and older discrete cards.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7500F strong enough for this game?

A: The CPU's benchmarks show it performs well, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22799 and single-core score of 3218. Its average benchmark score of 24993 places it within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, indicating the processor is not the limiting factor in this pairing.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p High settings?

A: The measured average is 42.4 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS threshold but above the 30 FPS minimum, making it playable for slower-paced flight simulation scenarios but not ideal for fast maneuvers.

Q: How much performance drops from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the frame rate drops from 70.4 FPS at 1080p to 56.3 FPS at 1440p (a 20% reduction), then to 40.5 FPS at 4K (a further 28% reduction). The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 29.9 FPS, or approximately 42% lower performance.