Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a unique load for any PC, and this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 produces a dataset that clearly separates the CPU’s responsibilities from the GPU’s. The benchmark results show a system that is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions, but which still leverages the processor’s strong single-thread performance to maintain high frame rates. The data indicates that this is a combination capable of very high visual fidelity, with the primary bottleneck shifting based on the resolution you choose to fly at.

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 based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 5 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. For a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on a single primary thread for the main simulation loop, this boost clock is the most critical specification. The processor’s high frequency ensures that the game’s core logic—physics, weather, and flight model calculations—is processed as quickly as possible, preventing the CPU from becoming the limiting factor when the GPU is not saturated.

The CPU’s L3 cache is 32 MB shared, and it supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. While the simulator can utilize multiple threads for tasks like rendering the terrain and managing AI traffic, the 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient to feed the RTX 4090. The benchmark scores for the processor confirm its capability: it posts a single-thread score of 974 in 3dmark and 3218 in Cinebench R23, demonstrating that the core design is fast enough to handle the game's demanding single-threaded workload. In multi-threaded tasks, it scores 6376 in 3dmark max_threads and 22799 in Cinebench R23, indicating that secondary tasks are handled without creating a performance bottleneck.

This CPU is positioned in the 77th percentile against all tested CPUs, showing it is a solid mid-to-high-range performer. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-11850H (0.1% faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (0.2% slower), and the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.2% faster), all of which are extremely close in aggregate score. This indicates that the 7500F is not the absolute fastest processor available, but its performance is tightly grouped with other competent chips. In the context of this game, the data suggests that the CPU’s single-core speed is the key enabler for high frame rates, especially when the visual settings are lowered to allow the GPU to render frames faster.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Ryzen 5 7500F and RTX 4090 achieves a combo rank of 116 out of 3714 tested combinations in this game. This places the pairing in the top 3% of all systems tested, which is a strong indicator of its overall capability. This rank is particularly notable because the CPU is a mid-range part while the GPU is a top-tier enthusiast component. The high rank implies that the CPU does not significantly hinder the GPU’s performance, even in a simulation title known for its CPU sensitivity.

While the CPU alone sits in the 77th percentile versus all CPUs, the combo’s top-3% ranking demonstrates that the RTX 4090 is able to operate near its full potential in this configuration. The data shows that the Ryzen 5 7500F provides enough single-threaded headroom to keep the frame rate from collapsing, which is often the critical failure point for lower-end CPUs in this game. The ranking suggests that users will get a very large majority of the performance they would see with a more expensive, higher-end CPU, making this a well-balanced pairing despite the apparent mismatch in tier.

The gap between the CPU’s individual percentile and the combo’s percentile highlights the nature of the workload. At 4K Ultra settings, the GPU is doing the heavy lifting, and the CPU is merely keeping up. The fact that the combo is ranked so highly indicates that the Ryzen 5 7500F is not a bottleneck in the most common high-fidelity scenarios. It is only in scenarios with very low settings and extremely high frame rates that the CPU might start to limit the system, and the measured FPS data provides insight into where that boundary lies.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the dominant component in this pairing, featuring 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing a massive 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. This memory capacity is far beyond what Microsoft Flight Simulator requires at any resolution, ensuring that texture streaming and asset loading are never constrained by VRAM. The GPU’s boost clock is 2520 MHz, and it is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with 16384 shading units. The sheer compute power—82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance—is what allows the simulator to render dense scenery, complex lighting, and volumetric clouds at high resolutions.

The RTX 4090 is positioned in the 88th percentile against all tested GPUs, which is exceptionally high. Its average benchmark score is 60347, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (2.5% slower) and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (2.9% slower). The data shows that this GPU is at the very top of the performance stack, and in this game, its role is to push pixel counts and fill rates. The GPU’s memory clock of 1313 MHz and 21 Gbps effective speed ensures that the massive texture data used by the game can be fed to the cores without delay.

In the measured results, the RTX 4090’s strength is evident in the high average FPS numbers, but the data also shows that the GPU is not always the bottleneck. At 1080p Low settings, the system hits 202 FPS, which is a very high number but likely constrained by the CPU’s ability to issue draw calls. As the resolution increases to 4K, the frame rate drops, demonstrating that the GPU’s rendering workload is scaling with pixel count. The 24 GB VRAM buffer is a key asset here, as it prevents any potential stuttering or texture pop-in that could occur with a less equipped card, even on the Ultra preset.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this system scales across different resolutions and quality presets. The dataset includes rows for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, with Low, Medium, High, and Ultra settings.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system performs as follows:

• Low: 202 FPS average
• Medium: 181 FPS average (with a min of 154 FPS and max of 208 FPS)
• High: 136 FPS average
• Ultra: 130 FPS average

The 1080p results show a clear CPU limit at lower settings. The jump from Low to Medium is only 21 FPS, and from Low to Ultra is a drop of 72 FPS. The fact that Low does not exceed 202 FPS suggests the CPU is capping performance here, as the RTX 4090 is fully capable of rendering far more frames at this resolution. The min FPS of 154 at Medium indicates that there are occasional dips, likely due to complex scenes loading.

At 2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 188 FPS average
• Medium: 146 FPS average (with a min of 124 FPS and max of 168 FPS)
• High: 110 FPS average
• Ultra: 105 FPS average

Moving to 1440p, the GPU load increases, but the frame rates remain very high. The delta between Low and Ultra is 83 FPS, showing that the GPU is now becoming more of a factor. The min FPS of 124 at Medium is solid, indicating that the system maintains playable frame rates even in demanding moments.

At 3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 138 FPS average
• Medium: 108 FPS average (with a min of 92 FPS and max of 124 FPS)
• High: 81 FPS average
• Ultra: 77 FPS average

At 4K, the GPU is the clear bottleneck. The frame rates scale down as settings increase, with Ultra producing 77 FPS and Low producing 138 FPS. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the system is playable, though it does not hit the 144 FPS target that many users prefer. The min FPS of 92 at Medium suggests that there is headroom for dips, but overall the experience remains smooth.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F a bottleneck for the RTX 4090 in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data indicates that the CPU is not a significant bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the system achieves 77 FPS, which is a GPU-limited scenario. However, at 1080p Low, the system only reaches 202 FPS, suggesting that the CPU is capping performance at lower settings and resolutions.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for a smooth experience?

A: At 1440p Ultra, the system averages 105 FPS, which is a strong target for a high-refresh-rate monitor. If you prefer a higher frame rate, 1440p High yields 110 FPS. At 4K, Medium settings provide 108 FPS, which is playable, but Ultra drops to 77 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4090’s 24 GB of VRAM affect performance in this game?

A: The 24 GB VRAM capacity ensures that the game’s large texture sets are fully loaded into memory, preventing stuttering and texture pop-in. The data shows consistent frame rates even at 4K Ultra, which is facilitated by the 1.01 TB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the combo’s ranking compared to other tested systems?

A: This specific CPU and GPU combination ranks 116th out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 3% of all systems, indicating excellent overall performance.

Q: Does the CPU’s 6-core/12-thread configuration limit the game’s multi-threading capabilities?

A: No, the 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient. The CPU scores 6379 in the 3dmark max_threads test and 22799 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, showing adequate multi-threaded performance. The game’s primary thread is handled by the high 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K compared to 1080p?

A: At 4K Ultra, the system averages 77 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra, it averages 130 FPS. The performance drop is due to the increased pixel count and shader load on the GPU at 4K. At 4K Low, it still manages 138 FPS, showing that the GPU is the limiting factor.

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

The data provides a clear hierarchy for optimizing the experience based on your display and performance preferences. For users with a 4K (3840x2160) display, the Medium preset is the sweet spot, delivering an average of 108 FPS with a minimum of 92 FPS. This provides a fluid experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold, while still offering a significant visual upgrade over Low. If you prioritize visual fidelity over raw frame rate, the Ultra preset at 77 FPS is still playable, but the 31 FPS difference between Medium and Ultra is substantial, and the visual gains may not justify the performance loss for all users. High at 81 FPS is a middle ground, but it is only 4 FPS faster than Ultra, making Medium the most efficient choice.

For 1440p (2560x1440) displays, the Ultra preset is the recommended starting point, as it achieves 105 FPS. This is an excellent frame rate for a high-refresh-rate monitor and provides the full visual experience the game has to offer. If you have a 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitor and want to get closer to that refresh rate, the High preset at 110 FPS only offers a marginal gain. The Low preset at 188 FPS is only useful for competitive play or if you are experiencing performance issues, but it sacrifices too much visual quality for the extra frames. Medium at 146 FPS is a solid fallback if you want a higher frame rate cushion, but the data shows Ultra is the best balance.

For 1080p (1920x1080) displays, the system is CPU-bound at lower settings, so the recommendation shifts. The Ultra preset at 130 FPS is the best choice for visual quality, providing a smooth experience on most displays. High at 136 FPS is nearly identical, so choosing between them is a matter of personal preference. The Medium preset at 181 FPS is a great option for users with very high refresh rate monitors (e.g., 240 Hz), as it provides a significant frame rate boost while still looking good. The Low preset at 202 FPS is only recommended for e-sports-style play, but the visual degradation in a flight simulator is severe.

The data suggests that the best overall experience for most users is 1440p Ultra, which offers a perfect balance of high visual fidelity and a frame rate that exceeds 100 FPS. For those with 4K displays, 4K Medium is the pragmatic choice, ensuring a fluid flight experience without requiring a compromise on all visual settings.