Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F pairs six Zen 4 cores with twelve threads, a 3.70 GHz base clock, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. This configuration places the CPU in the 82nd percentile of all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 24993. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its simulation-heavy single-thread workload, the CPU’s 3,218 Cinebench R23 single-core score and 22,799 multi-core score provide the foundational instruction throughput for the game’s complex flight dynamics and world generation. The data shows that the 7500F’s performance is tightly clustered with its nearest rivals: it sits a mere 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H (average score 24974) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (average score 24897). Conversely, it trails the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and AMD Ryzen 5 8400F by 0.3% each (both with average scores around 25057 and 25064, respectively). These negligible deltas—all within a fraction of a percent—indicate that in aggregate CPU benchmarks, the 7500F is statistically indistinguishable from its immediate competition, meaning any performance differences observed in the game’s FPS figures are more likely attributable to the GPU or memory subsystem than to a decisive CPU advantage.

The CPU’s 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth) are architectural features that directly influence how quickly the processor can feed data to the GPU. In a flight simulator, where terrain data is streamed continuously, cache hit rates and memory bandwidth can affect frametime consistency. The measured FPS data, however, shows a clear pattern: the CPU is not the limiting factor in most tested configurations. For instance, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination achieves 101.1 FPS, which is more than double the 4K Ultra result of 31 FPS. This scaling pattern suggests that as resolution and settings increase, the burden shifts decisively to the graphics card, a conclusion supported by the GPU’s own specifications and the diminishing returns seen at higher quality presets.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process, featuring 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 1650 MHz and 2176 shading units deliver 7.181 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, with 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores available for ray tracing and AI-accelerated features. The GPU holds the 63rd percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 19774. In the context of nearest rivals, the RTX 2060 SUPER is marginally ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN by 0.3%, ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 by 0.5%, and ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 by 0.8% (rival average scores are 19706, 19680, and 19623, respectively). These small deltas confirm that the RTX 2060 SUPER performs at the upper edge of its class, but it remains a mid-range GPU relative to the full database.

The VRAM capacity and bandwidth are critical in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads extensive photogrammetry and texture packs. The measured FPS deltas between settings illustrate the GPU’s workload scaling. At 3840x2160, the drop from Low (57.9 FPS) to Medium (46.6 FPS) is 11.3 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High (34.4 FPS) is 12.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra (31 FPS) is only 3.4 FPS. This pattern indicates that beyond High settings at 4K, the GPU is nearing its saturation point, where additional visual fidelity yields minimal framerate changes. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset (45.7 FPS) is nearly identical to the 4K High result (34.4 FPS) is not, but the 1440p Ultra is 11.3 FPS higher than 4K High, showing resolution scaling efficiency. The 1920x1080 results show the GPU can maintain playable frame rates even at Ultra (56.1 FPS), with Low settings reaching 101.1 FPS, indicating that the RTX 2060 SUPER has sufficient headroom for 1080p gaming in this title, but 4K Ultra is clearly beyond its comfortable operating range.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 7500F compare to its closest CPU rivals in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The 7500F’s average benchmark score of 24993 places it within a 0.4% range of its nearest rivals. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H (24974) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (24897), while trailing the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and AMD Ryzen 5 8400F by 0.3% each. These differences are within measurement noise.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this GPU in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on measured data, 1920x1080 at High settings yields 56.9 FPS, while Ultra drops slightly to 56.1 FPS. For higher fidelity, 2560x1440 at Medium produces 61.7 FPS, but High drops to 45.5 FPS. At 4K, only Low settings (57.9 FPS) approach smoothness, as Medium (46.6 FPS) and High (34.4 FPS) fall below typical playable thresholds.

Q: Is the RTX 2060 SUPER’s 8 GB VRAM sufficient for this game’s high-resolution textures?

A: The measured FPS data does not indicate VRAM-related stutters or crashes, but the performance drop from 1440p High (45.5 FPS) to 4K High (34.4 FPS) suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s) and capacity are being taxed. The 4K Ultra result of 31 FPS shows that the card is at its limit, likely due to both compute and memory pressure.

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

A: The combination of the Ryzen 5 7500F and RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 1351 out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database. This rank reflects the GPU’s mid-range standing (63rd percentile) more than the CPU’s strong showing (82nd percentile).

Q: What is the CPU’s single-thread performance, and why does it matter here?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F achieves a Geekbench single-core score of 2759 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3218. Flight simulators often rely heavily on a single main thread for game logic, so this strong single-thread performance likely prevents the CPU from bottlenecking the GPU at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 101.1 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: Are the FPS numbers consistent across settings, or are there anomalies?

A: The data shows a consistent scaling pattern. At 1080p, moving from Low (101.1 FPS) to Medium (77.8 FPS) is a 23.3 FPS drop, while High (56.9 FPS) and Ultra (56.1 FPS) are nearly identical. This plateau at High and Ultra suggests the GPU is hitting a compute limit rather than a memory limit, as the difference between those two presets is minimal.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1351 out of 1795 tested combinations places this hardware pairing in the 25th percentile of all measured systems. This ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU’s 63rd percentile standing, which drags the overall position down despite the CPU’s strong 82nd percentile performance. In practical terms, this means that the Ryzen 5 7500F is capable of driving a more powerful GPU without becoming a bottleneck, but the RTX 2060 SUPER limits the system’s overall ceiling. The gap between the CPU’s and GPU’s percentile rankings suggests a slight imbalance; the processor has headroom for more demanding graphics hardware. In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the FPS results confirm this: at 1080p Low, the system hits 101.1 FPS, but this drops to 56.1 FPS at Ultra, showing that the GPU is the primary constraint as settings increase. The rank also indicates that many other combos in the database achieve higher average frame rates, likely due to more modern GPUs with higher compute throughput and memory bandwidth.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the RTX 2060 SUPER delivers the most playable experience across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 101.1 FPS, which is a smooth and responsive frame rate suitable for any display. Medium settings drop to 77.8 FPS, still comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings yield 56.9 FPS, which is very close to the Ultra result of 56.1 FPS. This narrow gap between High and Ultra (0.8 FPS) suggests that the Ultra preset’s additional effects do not significantly tax the GPU at this resolution, or that the CPU begins to play a more equal role. The 13.2 FPS difference between Low and Medium (101.1 to 77.8) is substantial, indicating that the game’s medium preset introduces a significant computational load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance landscape shifts. Low settings still deliver 78.7 FPS, a strong result that remains playable. Medium settings drop to 61.7 FPS, which is borderline for high-refresh-rate monitors but acceptable for standard 60 Hz displays. High settings fall to 45.5 FPS, and Ultra is nearly identical at 45.7 FPS. The parity between High and Ultra at 1440p (a 0.2 FPS difference) mirrors the 1080p pattern, reinforcing that the Ultra preset’s marginal cost is minimal. However, the 16.2 FPS drop from Low to Medium at this resolution (78.7 to 61.7) is larger than the 23.3 FPS drop at 1080p, showing that resolution scaling amplifies the cost of medium-quality effects.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overburdened. Low settings achieve 57.9 FPS, which is the only 4K preset that approaches a playable level. Medium settings drop to 46.6 FPS, a 11.3 FPS reduction. High settings fall to 34.4 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 31 FPS. The progression from High to Ultra at 4K is a 3.4 FPS drop, which is the smallest absolute difference among all resolutions, indicating that the GPU is hitting a hard compute wall where additional settings changes have diminishing returns. The data across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: the RTX 2060 SUPER can handle 1080p and 1440p gaming with playable frame rates, but 4K requires Low settings to avoid noticeable stutter, and even then, the 57.9 FPS result is far from ideal for a flight simulator where smooth panning is critical.