Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT

This combination places the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT in a demanding flight simulator that stresses both CPU physics and GPU rendering. The measured results show a pairing that is capable of smooth gameplay across most settings, though the most extreme presets at 4K push the system to its limits. The data reveals a balanced configuration where the GPU's 16 GB of memory and high boost clocks handle the visual load, while the six-core Zen 4 processor keeps frame pacing consistent.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain an average FPS above 60?

A: At 1440p, all four settings presets — Low at 131.1 FPS, Medium at 100.3 FPS, High at 78 FPS, and Ultra at 72.8 FPS — exceed the 60 FPS threshold. At 4K, only the Low preset (93 FPS) and Medium preset (74.5 FPS) stay above 60 FPS, while High dips to 56.7 FPS and Ultra to 55.3 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 9070 XT's memory configuration influence 4K performance?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. This capacity allows the card to handle large texture loads at 4K without running out of memory, as evidenced by the fact that even the Ultra preset at 3840x2160 produces a playable 55.3 FPS average.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 162.5 FPS, while Ultra drops to 91.9 FPS. This represents a 43.4% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest quality settings at this resolution.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck at any tested configuration?

A: The data suggests the CPU becomes more relevant at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 162.5 FPS, which is the highest score across all tests; the gap between 1080p Low and 1440p Low (131.1 FPS) is 31.4 FPS, indicating that the GPU has headroom at 1080p that the CPU-bound simulation cannot fully exploit.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested hardware combinations?

A: The combo ranks 485th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the upper 27% of all configurations. This rank reflects strong overall performance but not top-tier status, as the simulation is known for being demanding on both processors and graphics cards.

Q: What clock speeds does the CPU and GPU run at for this test?

A: The CPU has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the GPU has a base clock of 1660 MHz, a game clock of 2400 MHz, and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. These specifications contribute to the measured frame rates across all settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 7500F and RX 9070 XT achieves a rank of 485 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it comfortably ahead of the median configuration, though it does not crack the top quartile. The percentile for the CPU stands at 82, meaning it outperforms 82% of all processors in the database, while the GPU also sits at the 82nd percentile. These parallel rankings indicate a well-matched pair where neither component dramatically outclasses the other, which is ideal for a simulator that requires sustained performance from both the CPU and GPU.

The rank of 485 suggests that while this combo is strong, there are many configurations with higher-end CPUs and GPUs that achieve better frame rates, particularly at 4K Ultra where the system dips to 55.3 FPS. The data implies that the combo is best suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p or 1440p gaming, where it delivers frame rates well above 60 FPS even on the Ultra preset. In the context of all tested combos, this system sits in a solid mid-to-upper tier, offering a balanced experience without the extremes of either a CPU-limited or GPU-limited build.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the primary driver of visual performance in this combo, and its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is a critical asset for Microsoft Flight Simulator's expansive scenery and high-resolution textures. The memory runs at 2518 MHz with an effective speed of 20.1 Gbps, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit bus. This bandwidth is sufficient to feed the 4096 shading units and 128 ROPs without starving the rendering pipeline, as evidenced by the consistent frame rates at 4K where memory bandwidth often becomes a limiting factor.

The GPU's clock behavior is also notable: the base clock of 1660 MHz and game clock of 2400 MHz are conservative, but the boost clock of 2970 MHz allows the card to ramp up under load. The measured FPS at 4K Medium (74.5 FPS) versus 4K High (56.7 FPS) shows a 17.8 FPS drop, which correlates with the increased shader and texture work demanded by the High preset. The GPU's 48.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 64 RT cores suggest it has headroom for future graphical updates, but in this game, the data shows that the Ultra preset at any resolution demands more than the card can deliver at 60 FPS, particularly at 4K where it averages just 55.3 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends on the user's target resolution and refresh rate. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 94.7 FPS, which is ideal for a 60 Hz or 144 Hz display, while the Medium preset at 125.9 FPS offers a smoother experience with slightly reduced visual fidelity. The Ultra preset at 91.9 FPS is still playable and provides the best image quality, so users with 1080p monitors should opt for Ultra if they prioritize visuals over the marginal frame rate gain from High.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset achieves 72.8 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold and offers the best visual experience without sacrificing smoothness. The High preset at 78 FPS is a safer choice for users who want a small buffer for complex scenes, but the data shows that Ultra is viable at this resolution. At 4K, the situation changes: the Medium preset at 74.5 FPS is the recommended choice, as it stays above 60 FPS while providing a good balance of quality. The High preset at 56.7 FPS and Ultra at 55.3 FPS are borderline, and users who prefer these presets should expect occasional dips below 60 FPS. The Low preset at 93 FPS is the only 4K option that offers headroom, but it sacrifices significant visual quality, making Medium the best compromise for 4K gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the frame rates range from 162.5 FPS at Low to 91.9 FPS at Ultra, with Medium at 125.9 FPS and High at 94.7 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 36.6 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 31.2 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is a slim 2.8 FPS. This suggests that the High to Ultra transition is relatively cheap in performance terms, while the jump from Low to Medium is more expensive.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop to 131.1 FPS at Low, 100.3 FPS at Medium, 78 FPS at High, and 72.8 FPS at Ultra. The scaling is more linear here: the difference between Low and Medium is 30.8 FPS, Medium to High is 22.3 FPS, and High to Ultra is 5.2 FPS. At 3840x2160, the frame rates are 93 FPS at Low, 74.5 FPS at Medium, 56.7 FPS at High, and 55.3 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 18.5 FPS, Medium to High is 17.8 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 1.4 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds negligible visual benefit over High at 4K while costing a small amount of performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 5 nm process node contribute to strong single-threaded performance, which is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator's simulation logic. The CPU's benchmark scores support this: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22799 and a single-core score of 3218, along with a Geekbench single-core score of 2759, indicate that the processor can handle both the physics calculations and the draw call overhead of the simulator.

The CPU's role in this combo is most evident at lower resolutions where the GPU is less stressed. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 162.5 FPS, which is 31.4 FPS higher than at 1440p Low (131.1 FPS) and 69.5 FPS higher than at 4K Low (93 FPS). This scaling suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at high frame rates, but the simulation's single-threaded nature limits performance as resolution increases. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking and its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11850H with a 0.1% delta, show that it is a mid-to-high-tier processor that pairs well with the RX 9070 XT, though it is not the absolute fastest option available.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals how the workload shifts between CPU and GPU. At Low settings, the frame rate goes from 162.5 FPS at 1080p to 131.1 FPS at 1440p (a 19.3% drop) and then to 93 FPS at 4K (a 29.1% drop from 1440p). This gradual decline indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases, but the CPU still has some influence at 1080p where the 162.5 FPS figure shows the processor's ability to maintain high frame rates.

At Ultra settings, the frame rate goes from 91.9 FPS at 1080p to 72.8 FPS at 1440p (a 20.8% drop) and then to 55.3 FPS at 4K (a 24.1% drop from 1440p). The smaller relative drop from 1440p to 4K at Ultra compared to Low suggests that the GPU is more fully utilized at higher settings, and the CPU bottleneck is reduced. The data shows that the combo is GPU-limited at 4K, particularly on High and Ultra presets where the frame rates hover around 55-57 FPS, while at 1080p and 1440p, the system maintains playable frame rates across all settings. This indicates that users who want to play at 4K should stick to Medium settings, while those at 1440p can enjoy Ultra without compromise.