Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a notoriously demanding title, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT produces a clear, predictable scaling pattern across resolutions. The data indicates a system that is heavily reliant on the graphics card at higher resolutions, while the processor keeps frame rates respectable at 1080p. This pairing lands at rank 963 out of 1795 tested combos, placing it slightly below the midpoint of all systems tested, which is a useful reference point for what to expect from this specific hardware configuration.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent drop as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario in this simulator. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves a robust 124.2 FPS average. Moving to 1440p drops that figure to 97.8 FPS, a significant reduction of about 21%. The jump to 4K (3840x2160) further reduces the average to 72.2 FPS, which is a 26% drop from the 1440p result and roughly 42% lower than the 1080p baseline.

This pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For instance, with High settings, the average FPS falls from 68.9 at 1080p to 58.6 at 1440p (a 15% decline), and then to 44.1 at 4K (a 25% decline from 1440p). The percentage drops between 1440p and 4K are generally larger than those between 1080p and 1440p, which indicates that the RX 6700 XT is running out of pixel-pushing bandwidth as the pixel count increases. The data suggests that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at 4K, while the CPU still has headroom to feed frames at lower resolutions. The scaling is not linear, but the trend is unmistakable: this combo is far more comfortable at 1080p and 1440p than at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal settings preset depends entirely on the target resolution, but the data shows a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. For a smooth experience at 1080p, the Low preset delivers 124.2 FPS, which is excellent for a flight simulator where quick camera pans and dense scenery can cause stutters. However, the Medium preset still provides a highly playable 94.4 FPS, and the High preset at 68.9 FPS is acceptable for those who prefer better visuals over raw speed. The Ultra preset at 67.7 FPS is nearly identical to High, suggesting that the extra visual details at Ultra cost very little performance at this resolution.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more nuanced. The Low preset yields 97.8 FPS, which is excellent, but the Medium preset drops to 72.7 FPS, still a smooth experience. The High preset at 58.6 FPS is the sweet spot for a balance of quality and performance, as it remains above the 60 FPS threshold that most users find acceptable. The Ultra preset at 56.7 FPS is playable but may show occasional dips in busy areas. At 4K, the data recommends a different approach entirely. The Low preset is the only option that provides a comfortable 72.2 FPS. The Medium preset at 56.4 FPS is borderline, and the High and Ultra presets at 44.1 and 36.9 FPS respectively are not recommended for anything but scenic screenshots, as they will feel sluggish during active flight.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 8000 series, based on the Zen 4 architecture. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, which are solid figures for a modern mid-range chip. The CPU’s benchmark scores indicate strong single-thread performance, with a 3dmark_single_thread score of 951 and a cinebench_r23_singlecore score of 2943. This is crucial for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to rely heavily on a single primary thread for the main simulation loop.

In the measured results, the CPU’s influence is most apparent at 1080p. The difference between the Low preset (124.2 FPS) and the Ultra preset (67.7 FPS) at 1080p is 56.5 FPS, which shows that the CPU is capable of pushing high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The fact that the 1080p High and Ultra results are so close (68.9 vs 67.7 FPS) suggests that the CPU is starting to become a limiting factor at this resolution, as the GPU should be able to render more frames if the CPU could supply them. The 8400F’s 16 MB of shared L3 cache is modest, but the 4 nm process and high clocks help it keep up with the demands of the simulator. The data shows a processor that is well-matched to this GPU for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but it is not the star of the show at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Ryzen 5 8400F and the RX 6700 XT achieves a combo rank of 963 out of 1795 tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower half of all combinations, which is a fair assessment given the mid-range nature of both components. The CPU itself performs well relative to its peers, sitting in the 82nd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25064. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, has an almost identical average score of 25057, showing a delta of 0%. This means the 8400F trades blows with an older, higher-tier chip, which reflects the efficiency of the Zen 4 architecture.

The GPU, meanwhile, sits in the 77th percentile against all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 33721 is closely matched by the AMD Radeon RX 6800, which scores 33493 (a delta of 0.7% in favor of the 6700 XT). This is surprising, as the RX 6800 is typically a faster card, but the data shows they are effectively equivalent in the aggregate benchmarks. The combo rank of 963 suggests that while each component is respectable on its own, the pairing does not unlock any special synergy that would push it higher up the leaderboard. It is a straightforward, balanced mid-range setup that performs exactly as the sum of its parts suggests.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is the clear bottleneck in this pairing at higher resolutions. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 2321 MHz and a boost clock of 2581 MHz, with a game clock of 2424 MHz. These clocks are high, but the 7 nm process and 40 RT cores are not enough to handle the extreme demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K. The GPU’s benchmark scores show strong compute performance, with a passmark_g3d score of 19786, but the measured FPS data tells the real story.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly telling. At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 72.7 to 56.4, a 22% reduction. At High settings, it drops from 58.6 to 44.1, a 25% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is struggling to fill the additional pixels. The 12 GB of VRAM is likely sufficient for this game at most settings, but the core compute power of the RX 6700 XT is simply not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K. The data suggests that for this game, the GPU is best utilized at 1440p or 1080p, where it can leverage its high clocks to provide a smooth experience. The 16 Gbps effective memory speed is adequate, but it does not compensate for the lack of raw shading power at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS data for this combo is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 124.2 FPS. Medium drops to 94.4 FPS. High averages 68.9 FPS, and Ultra is nearly identical at 67.7 FPS. This shows that from Medium to High, there is a substantial 25.5 FPS loss, but the jump from High to Ultra is negligible, costing only 1.2 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 97.8 FPS. Medium averages 72.7 FPS. High drops to 58.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 56.7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is again small (1.9 FPS), but the gap between Medium and High is a significant 14.1 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 72.2 FPS. Medium averages 56.4 FPS. High drops to 44.1 FPS, and Ultra averages 36.9 FPS. The scaling here is more punishing, with a 15.8 FPS difference between Low and Medium, and a 12.3 FPS difference between Medium and High. The Ultra preset is the only one that falls below 40 FPS, making it unsuitable for active gameplay.

The data shows that the most efficient preset at any resolution is Low, but the best balance of visual quality and performance is found at Medium for 1080p and 1440p, and Low for 4K. The minimal difference between High and Ultra across all resolutions suggests that the Ultra preset offers diminishing returns for this hardware, making High the better choice for those who want the best visuals without a significant FPS penalty.