Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER combination delivers a compelling, high-performance experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing a clear shift from CPU-bound performance at lower resolutions to GPU-bound performance at 4K. The measured frame rates across the three resolutions and four quality presets provide a detailed picture of how this system scales, and where its strengths and bottlenecks lie.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a classic scaling pattern, but with a notable twist at the higher end of the quality spectrum. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average frame rate at Ultra settings drops from 105 FPS to 82.5 FPS, a 21.4% reduction. The same transition from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Ultra shows a further drop to 57.3 FPS, a 30.5% reduction. This steep decline at 4K indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting factor, as the pixel processing load increases disproportionately compared to the CPU's workload.

At Low settings, the scaling is different. The system achieves 185.9 FPS at 1080p, which only drops to 143.7 FPS at 1440p (a 22.7% reduction) and then to 108.6 FPS at 4K (a 24.4% reduction). The fact that the 4K Low setting still produces over 100 FPS suggests that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU quickly when the visual load is minimal. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K (108.6 FPS vs. 57.3 FPS) is a massive 47.2% difference, highlighting how much the GPU's rendering load impacts performance at higher resolutions.

The data indicates that at 1080p, the Ryzen 5 7600X's performance is the key determinant. The difference between the High and Ultra presets at 1080p is essentially zero (both at 105 FPS), which is a strong indicator that the CPU is hitting a performance ceiling. The GPU has enough headroom to handle the extra graphical work of the Ultra preset, but the CPU cannot push frames any faster. This bottleneck is lifted as the resolution increases, where the GPU's workload becomes the dominant factor, allowing the CPU to keep up more easily.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing a smooth, high-refresh-rate experience on a 1440p monitor, the Medium preset at 113.2 FPS is the sweet spot. It offers a substantial 36.9% performance increase over the High preset (88.6 FPS) while still providing a significant visual upgrade over Low (143.7 FPS). Given the flight sim genre's reliance on smooth camera panning and instrument readability, the jump from Low to Medium is more impactful than the jump from High to Ultra.

At 4K, the choices are more constrained. The High preset delivers 62.7 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The Ultra preset, at 57.3 FPS, is just below that threshold. Benchmark results indicate that the High preset is the recommended choice for 4K, as it provides a playable frame rate without the performance cost of Ultra. The Medium preset at 84.6 FPS is also a viable option for those who prefer a higher frame rate buffer, but High offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance for a 4K display.

For 1080p users, the data shows that the Ultra preset (105 FPS) offers no performance penalty over High (105 FPS). This makes the Ultra preset the clear choice, as it provides the highest visual quality without sacrificing any frame rate. The CPU's bottleneck at this resolution means that the GPU is not being fully utilized, so there is no reason to dial back the graphics settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and preset combination for a 60 FPS target?

A: At 3840x2160, the High preset achieves 62.7 FPS, which is playable. However, the Ultra preset at this resolution drops to 57.3 FPS, below the 60 FPS target. At 2560x1440, all presets except Ultra (82.5 FPS) exceed 88 FPS.

Q: Is the system CPU-bound or GPU-bound in this game?

A: The data shows a CPU bottleneck at 1920x1080, where the High and Ultra presets both produce 105 FPS, indicating the GPU is not the limiting factor. As resolution increases to 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, with the Ultra preset dropping to 57.3 FPS.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a meaningful performance advantage over High?

A: No. At 1920x1080, both presets yield identical average FPS (105). At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is 6.1 FPS slower (82.5 vs. 88.6). At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset is 5.4 FPS slower (57.3 vs. 62.7). The performance cost of Ultra is significant at higher resolutions.

Q: How does the system perform at 1440p on the High preset?

A: The High preset at 2560x1440 produces an average of 88.6 FPS. This is a 29.5% improvement over the 4K High preset (62.7 FPS) and a 15.6% decrease from the 1080p High preset (105 FPS).

Q: What frame rate can be expected with the Medium preset at 4K?

A: The Medium preset at 3840x2160 delivers an average of 84.6 FPS. This is a 47.6% increase over the Ultra preset's 57.3 FPS at the same resolution, making it a strong option for high-refresh-rate 4K displays.

Q: Is there a large performance gap between the Low and Medium presets?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset (140.9 FPS) is 24.2% slower than Low (185.9 FPS). At 2560x1440, the gap is 21.2% (113.2 vs. 143.7 FPS), and at 3840x2160, the gap is 22.1% (84.6 vs. 108.6 FPS).

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the benchmark results show a wide range of performance across the presets. The Low preset leads with an average of 185.9 FPS. The Medium preset follows at 140.9 FPS, a 24.2% reduction. Both the High and Ultra presets plateau at 105 FPS, with no measurable difference between them. This plateau is a clear sign of a CPU limitation, as the GPU has the capability to render more frames but is being held back.

At 2560x1440, the scaling is more linear. The Low preset produces 143.7 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 113.2 FPS, a 21.2% decrease. The High preset is next at 88.6 FPS, a 21.7% decrease from Medium. The Ultra preset is the slowest at 82.5 FPS, which is 6.9% slower than the High preset. The performance cost of moving from High to Ultra is less severe at this resolution than it is at 4K.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The Low preset still manages 108.6 FPS. The Medium preset achieves 84.6 FPS, a 22.1% reduction. The High preset drops to 62.7 FPS, a 25.9% reduction from Medium. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, with an average of 57.3 FPS, which is 8.6% slower than High. The step from High to Ultra at 4K is the largest relative drop in the entire dataset, underscoring the heavy load of the Ultra preset.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER plays a critical role in this system, particularly at higher resolutions. Its 12 GB of GDDR6X memory and 192-bit memory bus provide a 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is sufficient to handle the high-resolution textures and geometry in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The boost clock of 2475 MHz and the Ada Lovelace architecture's 7168 shading units are the primary drivers of the raw pixel processing power that becomes essential at 4K.

The data indicates that the GPU's performance ceiling is not reached until the resolution is increased to 3840x2160. At 1080p, the GPU is underutilized, as evidenced by the identical frame rates for the High and Ultra presets. The GPU's 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores are present for the game's DirectX 12 Ultimate features, but the measured FPS data shows that the traditional rasterization workload is the main performance driver. The GPU's 35.48 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is a theoretical maximum, and the benchmark results show that the RTX 4070 SUPER is capable of delivering over 100 FPS at 1080p Low and 62.7 FPS at 4K High, demonstrating a strong balance of compute power and memory throughput for this simulation title.