Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 reveals a clear pattern: this combination scales predictably as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop varies significantly by settings preset. At Low settings, the frame rate falls from 156.4 FPS at 1920x1080 to 126.3 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 90.0 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 42.4% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low, which indicates the GPU is still the dominant constraint even at the lowest quality tier.

Moving to Medium settings, the same resolution sweep yields 121.7 FPS at 1080p, 96.2 FPS at 1440p, and 70.7 FPS at 4K — a 41.9% overall drop. High settings show 90.4 FPS at 1080p, 71.1 FPS at 1440p, and 55.7 FPS at 4K, a 38.4% decline. Ultra settings produce 86.9 FPS at 1080p, 68.6 FPS at 1440p, and 48.1 FPS at 4K, a 44.6% drop. The consistency of these reductions — all between roughly 38% and 45% — suggests the rendering pipeline is uniformly GPU-bound across presets.

The absolute numbers tell a more nuanced story. At 1080p Low, the system pushes 156.4 FPS, which is far beyond what a flight simulator typically needs for smooth camera panning over dense scenery. At 4K Ultra, the same setup manages only 48.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many users target. The key insight is that the RX 9070's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient even at 4K, as evidenced by the fact that the Low preset at 4K still delivers 90.0 FPS. The bottleneck is raw shader throughput, not memory capacity.

The scaling behavior indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator's workload at higher resolutions is almost entirely pixel-pushing. The 3584 shading units and 128 ROPs on the RX 9070 are being fully exercised at 4K Ultra, where the 48.1 FPS result is only 55.3% of the 1080p Ultra figure. This is a textbook example of a GPU-limited scenario, with the Ryzen 5 7500F's six Zen 4 cores providing enough headroom to avoid becoming the limiting factor at any tested resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 achieves a combo rank of 571 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the 68.2nd percentile of all combos — a solidly above-average result, though not in the top tier. The ranking reflects a balance: the CPU sits at the 82nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 79th percentile among all graphics cards. Neither component is a weak link, but neither is a top-10% performer either.

Examining the CPU's nearest rivals helps contextualize the ranking. The Ryzen 5 7500F's average benchmark score of 24993 is essentially identical to the Intel Core i7-11850H (24974, deltaPct 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (25057, deltaPct -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (25064, deltaPct -0.3%). The Ryzen 9 6900HX trails slightly at 24897 (deltaPct 0.4%). This tight clustering means the 7500F is not a standout in raw compute — it is simply a competent modern six-core part that does not hold back the GPU in this flight simulator.

On the GPU side, the RX 9070's average benchmark score of 34780 places it near the NVIDIA A2 (34866, deltaPct -0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34677, deltaPct 0.3%), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34541, deltaPct 0.7%), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (34511, deltaPct 0.8%). The near-zero deltas among these rivals suggest the RX 9070 is performing exactly at the level its silicon would predict. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy draw calls and complex geometry, the combo's rank of 571 out of 1795 is respectable but not class-leading.

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured average at 3840x2160 Ultra is 48.1 FPS, which falls short of 60 FPS. Users wanting 4K will need to drop to High settings (55.7 FPS) or Medium (70.7 FPS) to exceed that threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for high refresh rate monitors?

A: At 1920x1080, the combination delivers 121.7 FPS on Medium and 156.4 FPS on Low, making it suitable for 120 Hz or higher displays. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset (126.3 FPS) crosses the 120 FPS mark.

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 1440p at High settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 90.4 at 1920x1080 to 71.1 at 2560x1440, a reduction of 21.3%. This is a moderate penalty that still leaves the game playable.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM sufficient for 4K in this game?

A: The measured data shows 4K Low at 90.0 FPS and 4K Medium at 70.7 FPS, indicating that memory capacity is not a limiting factor. The RX 9070's 16 GB GDDR6 and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for the tested configurations.

Q: How does this combo compare to the CPU's closest rival in gaming?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F's average score of 24993 is within 0.3% of the Ryzen 7 2700X (25057) and 0.4% of the Ryzen 9 6900HX (24897). The differences are negligible in real-world gaming terms.

Q: What framerate can users expect at 1440p Ultra?

A: The measured average is 68.6 FPS, which is smooth for a flight simulator and comfortably above the 60 FPS target. This is the highest settings preset that remains fully playable at 1440p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings sweep shows a wide spread: Low delivers 156.4 FPS, Medium drops to 121.7 FPS, High comes in at 90.4 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 86.9 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 3.5 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset at this resolution. The jump from Low to Medium costs 34.7 FPS, which is a significant penalty for the visual improvements Medium provides.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts slightly. Low produces 126.3 FPS, Medium 96.2 FPS, High 71.1 FPS, and Ultra 68.6 FPS. The relative drop from Low to Medium is 30.1 FPS, while the High-to-Ultra gap narrows to just 2.5 FPS. This compression at the top end indicates that Ultra settings at 1440p are barely more demanding than High in this title, at least for this hardware combination.

At 3840x2160, the numbers become more constrained. Low yields 90.0 FPS, Medium 70.7 FPS, High 55.7 FPS, and Ultra 48.1 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra is nearly linear here: each step costs roughly 14 FPS, with the Medium-to-High step at 15.0 FPS being the largest single drop. At 4K, every preset tier matters, and users must make deliberate trade-offs between visual fidelity and frame rate.

The full dataset shows no anomalous outliers. Every resolution and settings combination follows the expected monotonic decrease as quality increases. The 1080p Ultra figure of 86.9 FPS is notably close to the 1440p High figure of 71.1 FPS, and the 4K Low figure of 90.0 FPS nearly matches the 1080p High figure of 90.4 FPS. These crossovers suggest that the game's rendering cost scales more with resolution than with preset quality in the mid-range of settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends on the target display. For 1920x1080, the High preset at 90.4 FPS offers the best balance — it is well above the 60 FPS threshold while avoiding the steep performance cost of Medium (121.7 FPS) which provides only marginal visual gains over High in most scenes. For users with 120 Hz displays, Medium at 121.7 FPS is the recommended choice, as it clears the refresh rate headroom while maintaining decent fidelity.

At 2560x1440, Ultra at 68.6 FPS is the clear recommendation for users with 60 Hz monitors. The High preset at 71.1 FPS is only 2.5 FPS faster, so the visual upgrade to Ultra is essentially free. For those targeting higher refresh rates, Medium at 96.2 FPS is the sensible pick, as it provides a 27.6 FPS advantage over High while still looking substantially better than Low.

For 3840x2160, the recommendation is Medium at 70.7 FPS. This is the only 4K preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS while retaining meaningful visual quality. High at 55.7 FPS is playable but hovers near the 60 FPS line, and Ultra at 48.1 FPS will feel stuttery during fast camera movements. Low at 90.0 FPS is available for users who prioritize smoothness above all else, but the visual degradation in a flight simulator — where distant terrain and cockpit details matter — is significant.

The overarching recommendation is to avoid Ultra at 4K with this combo, as the 48.1 FPS result is below the playability threshold for most users. Conversely, at 1080p, Ultra at 86.9 FPS is perfectly viable and offers the best image quality without sacrificing smoothness.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F brings six cores and twelve threads to this pairing, running at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. This is a Zen 4 architecture part built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with scene data, handle physics calculations, and manage the complex draw calls typical of a simulator with dense scenery.

The measured FPS data suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at any resolution. At 1080p Low, the 156.4 FPS result indicates the six cores are keeping up with the GPU's output. The CPU's single-thread performance — a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3218 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2759 — is strong enough for the game's main simulation thread. The multi-threaded score of 22799 in Cinebench R23 shows adequate scaling across all twelve threads for background tasks like terrain streaming.

The CPU's percentile rank of 82 among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 24993, places it in the upper tier of desktop CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11850H, scores 24974 (deltaPct 0.1%) — essentially identical performance. This means the 7500F is delivering exactly what its architecture would predict. In a game that is often GPU-bound at high resolutions, the 7500F's 5.00 GHz boost clock ensures that even the most demanding simulator scenes do not experience CPU-induced frame drops.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured FPS results. Built on RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 48 chip on TSMC's 4 nm process, the GPU contains 53,900 million transistors across a 357 mm² die. It operates with a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and a boost clock of 2520 MHz. The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth — a figure that proves sufficient even at 4K, as evidenced by the 90.0 FPS result at 4K Low.

The GPU's compute resources — 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs — produce a peak FP32 throughput of 36.13 TFLOPS. This raw compute power is what drives the frame rate differences across settings. The 4K Ultra result of 48.1 FPS versus the 1080p Ultra result of 86.9 FPS shows a 55.3% reduction, which aligns closely with the 4x pixel count increase between those resolutions. The GPU's 56 ray tracing cores are present but not directly measured in this dataset; the game's performance is dominated by traditional rasterization.

The RX 9070's percentile rank of 79 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34780, places it near the NVIDIA A2 (34866, deltaPct -0.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34677, deltaPct 0.3%). The 220 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate this is a mainstream enthusiast card, not a flagship. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is clear: it is the limiting factor at 4K Ultra, but it provides playable frame rates at every other tested configuration. The 16 GB VRAM capacity prevents any memory-related stuttering, and the 644.6 GB/s bandwidth handles the high-resolution textures without issue.