Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination reveals a classic resolution-scaling pattern. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 76 FPS. Dropping to 2560x1440 Low yields 61.6 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 47.3 FPS. That progression — from 76 to 61.6 to 47.3 — represents a 19% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, then another 23% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is fairly linear, which suggests the GPU is becoming the primary constraint as pixel count rises.

The High settings row tells a similar story. At 1080p High, the combo hits 48 FPS. At 1440p High, it drops to 36.3 FPS, and at 4K High, it falls to 25 FPS. The percentage drops are nearly identical to the Low settings pattern, reinforcing that the limiting factor scales with resolution rather than with the complexity of the scene. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a much flatter curve across resolutions, especially at lower settings where the GPU has less work to do. Instead, the data shows that every resolution step costs roughly 20-25% of performance, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

The Ultra settings row confirms this interpretation. The 1080p Ultra result of 44.8 FPS drops to 37.2 FPS at 1440p Ultra and 23.7 FPS at 4K Ultra. Interestingly, the gap between 1080p and 1440p Ultra is smaller (about 17%) than the gap between 1440p and 4K Ultra (about 36%). This non-linear behavior at the highest quality preset suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER's memory subsystem — with its 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus — may be under particular strain at 4K with Ultra settings, possibly hitting capacity limits that exacerbate the resolution penalty.

What does this imply for the limiting component? The data strongly points to the GPU as the primary bottleneck in this pairing. The Ryzen 5 7500F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads boosting to 5.00 GHz, appears to have ample headroom. Even at 1080p Low, where CPU load would be highest relative to GPU load, the system only reaches 76 FPS — a figure that suggests the GPU is still the constraint rather than the processor. Flight simulators are notoriously single-thread sensitive, but the 7500F's single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 974, Cinebench R23 single-core of 3218) appears sufficient for this workload.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1590 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11.4% of all configurations tested, which is a striking position given the CPU's capabilities. The rank reflects the combined system performance, and the data indicates that the GPU is dragging the overall ranking down significantly.

To contextualize this ranking, consider the individual component percentiles. The Ryzen 5 7500F sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24993. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-11850H (avg score 24974, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (avg score 25057, delta -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (avg score 25064, delta -0.3%). This is a CPU that performs near the top of its class, trading blows with much more expensive processors.

The GTX 1660 SUPER, by contrast, sits at the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (avg score 14314, delta -0.2%), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (avg score 14315, delta -0.2%), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (avg score 14389, delta -0.7%). The GPU is essentially mid-pack, and its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator — a game known for heavy graphics loads — is not sufficient to push the combo higher in the rankings.

The discrepancy between the CPU's 82nd percentile and the combo's 11th percentile ranking tells a clear story: the GPU is the limiting factor. A system with this CPU could achieve a much higher combo rank if paired with a more capable graphics card. The data suggests that the 7500F has significant untapped potential in this game, and the measured FPS numbers confirm that the GTX 1660 SUPER is holding the system back from what the CPU could otherwise deliver.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 76, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only resolution and settings combination that exceeds 70 FPS in the measured data.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combo produces an average of 23.7 FPS. This is the lowest measured result across all tested configurations, indicating that 4K Ultra is not a viable option for this hardware pairing.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the bottleneck in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU ranks at the 82nd percentile among all processors, while the combo ranks 1590 out of 1795. The FPS scaling pattern across resolutions — where performance drops consistently with each resolution increase — is characteristic of GPU-limited scenarios.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1590 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11.4% of all tested configurations.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 14286. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, scores 14314 (a delta of -0.2%). The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 14389 (delta -0.7%). These are extremely close scores, indicating the GTX 1660 SUPER is performance-competitive with its direct peers.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p gameplay?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields 76 FPS, Medium yields 58 FPS, High yields 48 FPS, and Ultra yields 44.8 FPS. Depending on the target frame rate, Medium at 58 FPS may offer the best balance between visual quality and smoothness.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware combination covers three resolutions and four settings presets, producing twelve distinct data points. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 76 FPS average, the Medium preset delivers 58 FPS, the High preset delivers 48 FPS, and the Ultra preset delivers 44.8 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a total drop of 31.2 FPS, or approximately 41% of the Low preset's performance. The step from Low to Medium costs 18 FPS, the step from Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and the step from High to Ultra costs only 3.2 FPS. This diminishing penalty at higher presets suggests that the High and Ultra settings are increasingly similar in their GPU demands for this particular scene.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 61.6 FPS, the Medium preset produces 47.9 FPS, the High preset produces 36.3 FPS, and the Ultra preset produces 37.2 FPS. Notably, the Ultra preset at 1440p actually outperforms the High preset by 0.9 FPS, which is a minor anomaly in the data. This could indicate that the Ultra preset's additional settings do not meaningfully increase GPU load for this scene, or that there is measurement variance. The step from Low to Medium at 1440p costs 13.7 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 11.6 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset yields 47.3 FPS, the Medium preset yields 33.8 FPS, the High preset yields 25 FPS, and the Ultra preset yields 23.7 FPS. The 4K results show the steepest relative drops between presets, with the Low-to-Medium step costing 13.5 FPS and the Medium-to-High step costing 8.8 FPS. The High-to-Ultra step is relatively small at 1.3 FPS, mirroring the pattern seen at 1080p. Across all resolutions, the Low preset is the only one that consistently maintains playable frame rates, though even that falls below 60 FPS at 4K.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael) using TSMC's 5 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes. Its benchmark scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multicore reaches 22799, single-core reaches 3218, and Geekbench multicore hits 12686 with single-core at 2759.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily to handle the simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic — workloads that are often heavily single-threaded. The 7500F's single-thread performance, as evidenced by its 3dmark_single_thread score of 974 and Passmark single-thread score of 3841, appears more than adequate for this title. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low — the configuration that places the least load on the GPU and the most relative load on the CPU — the system only reaches 76 FPS. This ceiling is well below what the CPU is capable of delivering in other workloads, suggesting that the processor is not the limiting factor.

The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 24993, places it in the company of much more expensive chips. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11850H, scores 24974 (delta 0.1%), while the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X scores 25057 (delta -0.3%). The 7500F's 12 threads and high boost clock are theoretically well-suited to a flight simulator that can utilize multiple cores for various subsystems. However, the data shows that the GPU's performance ceiling caps the system well before the CPU's capabilities are exhausted.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset at 58 FPS appears to offer the best balance. The Low preset at 76 FPS is smoother, but the jump to Medium only costs 18 FPS while providing substantially better visual quality. The High preset at 48 FPS is still playable, and the Ultra preset at 44.8 FPS is marginally worse but visually superior. For users prioritizing smoothness, Low at 76 FPS is the clear choice, but for a balance of performance and visuals, Medium at 58 FPS is recommended.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes. The Low preset at 61.6 FPS is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 47.9 FPS is acceptable for less demanding users, but the High preset at 36.3 FPS and Ultra preset at 37.2 FPS dip into territory where flight simulator gameplay may feel less responsive. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick with Low or Medium, with Low being the safer choice for consistent frame pacing.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets achieve 60 FPS. The Low preset at 47.3 FPS is the most playable option, while Medium at 33.8 FPS, High at 25 FPS, and Ultra at 23.7 FPS are all below 35 FPS. For 4K users, Low is the only viable preset, and even then, the experience may not be ideal for a flight simulator where smooth visuals are important for immersion. Users with 4K displays may want to consider lowering the resolution or accepting reduced visual fidelity to maintain playable frame rates.

The anomaly at 1440p where Ultra (37.2 FPS) slightly outperforms High (36.3 FPS) is worth noting. This suggests that at this resolution, the Ultra preset does not impose a meaningful additional GPU load compared to High, and users may prefer Ultra for its better visuals without a performance penalty.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture using TSMC's 12 nm process, with the TU116 chip containing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. It features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, with 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Its compute capabilities include 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 10.05 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (at a 2:1 ratio). The GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and has a 125 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is responsible for rendering the vast and detailed environments, including photogrammetry data, weather effects, and intricate aircraft models. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is a critical consideration here, as the game's high-resolution textures and dense scenery can be memory-intensive. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU becomes progressively more strained as resolution increases, with the 4K results dropping to 23.7 FPS at Ultra — a clear indication that the GPU's compute and memory capabilities are being overwhelmed.

The GTX 1660 SUPER's 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286, places it in the middle of the pack. Its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (score 14314, delta -0.2%), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (score 14315, delta -0.2%), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (score 14389, delta -0.7%) — are all within 1% of its performance. This tight clustering suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER is not significantly better or worse than its direct competitors, but rather sits at a performance plateau that is insufficient for demanding titles like Microsoft Flight Simulator at high resolutions.

The GPU's 1785 MHz boost clock and 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are respectable for its class, but the data shows they are not enough to maintain high frame rates in this game. The FPS scaling pattern across resolutions — where every step up in resolution costs roughly 20-25% performance — is consistent with a GPU that is compute-bound rather than memory-bound, but the 4K Ultra result suggests that VRAM capacity may also be a factor at the highest settings.