Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

This pairing of AMD's 6-core Zen 4 desktop processor with NVIDIA's Ampere-based RTX 3070 Ti delivers a 1080p Ultra experience at 79 FPS average, but the data reveals a steep performance curve as resolution climbs to 4K, where the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. The combination ranks in the 64.6th percentile of all tested combos for this simulator, placing it firmly in the upper third of the 3,714 configurations measured.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo's overall rank in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 1313 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of all configurations measured for this game.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24,964 average benchmark points, sitting just 0.1% above the Intel Core i7-11850H (24,935) and 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (25,005). It also edges out the Intel Core i7-13620H (24,911) by 0.2% and the Intel Core 5 210H (24,872) by 0.4%.

Q: What is the best FPS result recorded across all settings and resolutions?

A: The highest average FPS is 142, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 115 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 111 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti features 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks run at 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed.

Q: What is the CPU's core and thread configuration?

A: The Ryzen 5 7500F has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz. It uses the Zen 4 architecture on AMD Socket AM5.

Q: Does the GPU outperform or underperform relative to its closest competitor?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti averages 29,945 benchmark points, sitting 0.1% above the RTX 5070 Mobile (29,928) and 0.5% above the RTX 2080 Ti (29,783). It trails the RX 6800 (30,095) by 0.5% and the RX 6700 (30,433) by 1.6%.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F brings a 6-core, 12-thread configuration based on the Zen 4 Raphael architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. With a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost up to 5.00 GHz, this processor delivers strong single-threaded performance that flight simulators depend on for physics, flight model calculations, and scenery generation. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core provide ample data locality for the simulation's complex world streaming.

Synthetic benchmarks corroborate the CPU's suitability. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22,799 and single-core score of 3,218 indicate robust all-around performance. The Geekbench multicore result of 12,362 with a single-core score of 2,374 further reinforces this picture. PassMark's multithread score of 26,825 and single-thread score of 3,841 show balanced capabilities that translate well to a game where both high-frequency single-core performance and multi-threaded background tasks matter.

The CPU's percentile standing at 77 versus all processors places it above the median. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11850H, scores nearly identically at 24,935 (0.1% lower), while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F sits 0.2% higher at 25,005. This clustering suggests the 7500F delivers performance in a tightly contested band, where the differences between these CPUs are negligible in real-world gaming scenarios.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU handles the heavy simulation logic — weather systems, air traffic, flight dynamics, and the streaming of scenery data. The 12 threads allow the game to distribute these workloads while maintaining frame pacing. The 3DMark scores further illustrate the scaling: 1,902 for 2 threads, 3,621 for 4 threads, 5,372 for 8 threads, and 6,379 at max threads. The near-linear scaling from 2 to 8 threads suggests the CPU efficiently utilizes its resources, though the modest gain from 8 to max threads (6,372 to 6,379) indicates diminishing returns beyond 8 threads in synthetic workloads.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti employs the GA104 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die. Its 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs provide substantial rasterization throughput. The 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores offer hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS capabilities, though the measured FPS data here does not include ray tracing-specific results.

The GPU's 8 GB of GDDR6X memory with 608.3 GB/s bandwidth is a critical specification for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads vast textures for terrain, aircraft, and buildings. At 4K Ultra settings, the 47 FPS average suggests the 8 GB frame buffer is being pushed hard — the memory bandwidth becomes a bottleneck as resolution increases. The GPU's boost clock of 1770 MHz and base of 1575 MHz provide the raw compute for pixel and texture throughput, with a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s.

The RTX 3070 Ti's FP32 performance of 21.75 TFLOPS places it in a competitive position, as evidenced by its 75th percentile standing among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 29,945 positions it nearly identically to the RTX 5070 Mobile (29,928, 0.1% higher for the 3070 Ti) and the RTX 2080 Ti (29,783, 0.5% higher). The AMD RX 6800 (30,095) and RX 6700 (30,433) edge ahead by 0.5% and 1.6% respectively, showing the 3070 Ti is competitive but not class-leading in raw compute.

In the measured game data, the GPU's role becomes dominant at higher resolutions. The transition from 1080p to 4K at High settings shows a 41% FPS drop (83 to 49), indicating the GPU is being saturated. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,478 and PassMark G3D score of 23,356 provide context for the GPU's overall capability, though the game-specific results are more telling: the RTX 3070 Ti can handle 1080p Ultra at 79 FPS but falls to 47 FPS at 4K Ultra.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1313 out of 3714 tested configurations places it in the 64.6th percentile — comfortably above the median but not in the top tier. This ranking reflects both the CPU's 77th percentile and GPU's 75th percentile standings, suggesting the pairing is well-balanced for this simulator. The data indicates that neither component dramatically drags down the other; instead, they complement each other across the measured resolutions.

Given that the CPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.4% of its average benchmark score, the processor choice is unlikely to be the differentiator in ranking. Similarly, the GPU's nearest rivals cluster within 1.6%, meaning the overall combo ranking is more influenced by how this specific pairing handles the game's unique demands than by raw component scores. The fact that this combo achieves 79 FPS at 1080p Ultra and 64 FPS at 1440p Ultra suggests it occupies a sweet spot for high-refresh 1080p and solid 1440p gaming in this title.

Comparatively, combos ranking above 1313 likely feature either higher-tier CPUs with more cores or GPUs with more VRAM and bandwidth. The 8 GB VRAM limitation becomes apparent at 4K where the 49 FPS High result and 47 FPS Ultra result are close, hinting that memory capacity — not just compute — is constraining performance. This is a notable finding: the GPU's 75th percentile compute standing doesn't translate to proportional 4K performance in this game, suggesting the memory subsystem is the limiting factor at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance on optimal settings. At 1080p, Medium settings deliver 111 FPS average with a minimum of 94 FPS and maximum of 127 FPS — this is the highest FPS with a recorded minimum above 90, making it ideal for smooth gameplay on high-refresh monitors. High settings at 1080p drop to 83 FPS average, still playable but a significant 25% reduction. Ultra at 1080p yields 79 FPS, a marginal 4 FPS drop from High, suggesting diminishing returns in visual fidelity versus performance at the top setting tier.

For 1440p, Medium settings give 89 FPS average with a 76 FPS minimum and 103 FPS maximum, which remains smooth for most displays. High settings at 1440p produce 67 FPS average, a notable 25% drop from Medium. Ultra at 1440p falls to 64 FPS. The recommendation here is Medium for 1440p if frame rate consistency is prioritized, as the minimum of 76 FPS ensures no significant stutter.

At 4K, Medium settings yield 66 FPS average with 56 FPS minimum and 76 FPS maximum — this is the only 4K preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS. High settings at 4K drop to 49 FPS, while Ultra falls to 47 FPS. Low settings at 4K provide 85 FPS but presumably sacrifice considerable visual quality. For 4K gaming, Medium is the recommended setting to balance playability with visual detail.

The Low settings results across all resolutions (142 FPS at 1080p, 115 FPS at 1440p, 85 FPS at 4K) show the ceiling of what this combo can achieve when visual fidelity is minimized. The data suggests that Medium is the "sweet spot" preset, offering the best balance between performance and quality across all three resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 142 FPS average
• Medium: 111 FPS average (94 min, 127 max)
• High: 83 FPS average
• Ultra: 79 FPS average

At 1080p, the progression from Low to Ultra shows a 44% performance reduction (142 to 79 FPS). The Medium to High drop is 25% (111 to 83 FPS), while High to Ultra is only 5% (83 to 79 FPS). This indicates that the Ultra preset at 1080p offers marginal gains over High for a small FPS cost.

2560x1440:

• Low: 115 FPS average
• Medium: 89 FPS average (76 min, 103 max)
• High: 67 FPS average
• Ultra: 64 FPS average

At 1440p, the Low to Ultra range spans 51 FPS (115 to 64), a 44% reduction. Medium to High drops 25% (89 to 67 FPS), while High to Ultra drops only 4% (67 to 64 FPS). The pattern mirrors 1080p: the largest performance penalties come between Medium and High, not between High and Ultra.

3840x2160:

• Low: 85 FPS average
• Medium: 66 FPS average (56 min, 76 max)
• High: 49 FPS average
• Ultra: 47 FPS average

At 4K, the Low to Ultra range is 38 FPS (85 to 47), a 45% reduction. Medium to High drops 26% (66 to 49 FPS), and High to Ultra drops only 4% (49 to 47 FPS). The 4K results show the GPU struggling most severely: even Low settings only reach 85 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra narrows to nearly nothing.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling across resolutions reveals where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19% (142 to 115 FPS), and from 1440p to 4K is 26% (115 to 85 FPS). This relatively moderate scaling suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting, as the GPU isn't fully saturated with pixel work.

At Medium settings, the scaling steepens: 1080p to 1440p drops 20% (111 to 89 FPS), and 1440p to 4K drops 26% (89 to 66 FPS). The minimum FPS at each resolution (94, 76, 56) shows a consistent trend — each resolution step costs approximately 20 FPS at the minimum.

High settings show the most dramatic scaling: 1080p to 1440p drops 19% (83 to 67 FPS), but 1440p to 4K drops 27% (67 to 49 FPS). The 4K High result of 49 FPS is barely above the 47 FPS Ultra result, indicating the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling.

Ultra settings demonstrate similar behavior: 1080p to 1440p drops 19% (79 to 64 FPS), and 1440p to 4K drops 27% (64 to 47 FPS). Across all presets, the 1440p to 4K transition consistently costs more than the 1080p to 1440p transition, confirming the GPU becomes increasingly the limiting component at higher resolutions.

The data implies that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are relatively balanced, but by 4K, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 608.3 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient to maintain frame rates above 50 FPS at High or Ultra settings. The narrow gap between High and Ultra at 4K (49 vs 47 FPS) suggests the game is hitting a memory bandwidth wall rather than a compute limit. This is a crucial insight: upgrading to a GPU with more VRAM or higher bandwidth would likely yield larger 4K gains than a CPU upgrade would.