Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 combination ranks at 422nd place out of 1,795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top quarter of all tested systems. This is a strong result for a flight simulator, which is notoriously demanding on both CPU and GPU due to its complex scenery rendering and physics calculations. The rank reflects a balanced pairing where neither component is a glaring bottleneck, though the data reveals distinct performance characteristics depending on resolution and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The 422nd rank out of 1,795 combos puts this system in the 76.5th percentile of all tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU itself sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 81st percentile among all GPUs, indicating a well-matched duo where both components perform near their respective peer groups. The combo outperforms the majority of systems, but the data shows it is not at the absolute top tier—there is a meaningful gap to the highest-performing rigs, likely those with more powerful GPUs or CPUs with higher multithreaded throughput.

The Ryzen 5 8400F's average benchmark score of 25,064 places it within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, a close sibling in the 8000-series lineup. It is also statistically tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (25,057) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25,099). This means the CPU is competitive with older high-end parts and newer mid-range chips, but it does not have the raw multithreaded muscle of higher-tier processors. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can utilize multiple cores for scenery and AI traffic, this CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient but not exceptional, as evidenced by its multi-threaded benchmarks like Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20,851.

The GPU's average benchmark score of 37,283 is within 2.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 5300M, though that comparison is misleading given the mobile vs. desktop nature of those parts. More relevantly, it trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile by 2.2% and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A by 1.9% in aggregate benchmarks, though those are also laptop parts. The RTX 4070 is an end-of-life desktop part, but its performance in this game is solid, as the measured FPS data below demonstrates.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 provides 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is adequate for Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings, where the game's high-resolution textures and detailed terrain can consume significant VRAM. The GPU's base clock is 1920 MHz with a boost clock of 2475 MHz, and its memory runs at an effective 21 Gbps. These clocks allow the GPU to maintain high fill rates, as evidenced by its 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 455.4 GTexel/s texture rate.

In this game, the GPU's role shifts with resolution. At 1080p, the CPU becomes more of a limiting factor, as the GPU can render frames faster than the CPU can feed it data. At 4K, the GPU is the dominant constraint, with the pixel throughput requirements outpacing the CPU's ability to prepare draw calls. The RTX 4070's 5,888 shading units and 46 RT cores are well-suited for the DirectX 12 rendering pipeline used by the game, though the game does not heavily utilize ray tracing by default. The GPU's 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is ample for the simulation's physics and post-processing effects at high and ultra settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: The combo produces an average of 95.6 FPS at 1920x1080 with High settings. This is a playable frame rate for a flight simulator, though it is notably lower than the 161.7 FPS achieved at Low settings, showing the significant impact of graphical fidelity on performance.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 55.8 FPS. This is just below the 60 FPS threshold that many consider smooth, but it remains playable for a simulation genre where frame pacing is less critical than in fast-paced shooters.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 104.7 FPS. The fact that increasing resolution from 1080p to 1440p only drops FPS by about 18% at Medium settings suggests the CPU is still partially limiting performance, as a purely GPU-bound scenario would show a larger drop.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance relative to its multi-thread performance?

A: The CPU scores 2,943 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 20,851 in multicore. This indicates a strong single-thread performance that is beneficial for the game's main simulation loop, while the multicore score shows adequate scaling for background tasks.

Q: How much faster is the combo at 1080p Low compared to 4K Ultra?

A: The average FPS at 1080p Low is 161.7 FPS, while at 4K Ultra it is 55.8 FPS. This represents a 65.5% reduction in FPS when moving from the lowest settings at 1080p to the highest settings at 4K, highlighting the massive GPU load increase.

Q: Does the GPU's memory bandwidth limit performance in this game?

A: The RTX 4070's 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth is sufficient for the game's data streaming needs at 1440p and below. At 4K Ultra, the bandwidth becomes more critical, but the measured 55.8 FPS suggests the GPU's compute capacity, not just memory bandwidth, is the primary constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 161.7 FPS at Low, 127.2 FPS at Medium, 95.6 FPS at High, and 93.4 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial, but even at Ultra, the frame rate remains above 90 FPS, making this resolution ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 131.2 FPS at Low, 104.7 FPS at Medium, 77.2 FPS at High, and 71.7 FPS at Ultra. The 1440p results show a more pronounced drop from Low to High settings, but the system still maintains smooth gameplay at Ultra. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 5.5 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest settings.

At 3840x2160, the performance becomes more demanding: 98.4 FPS at Low, 75.7 FPS at Medium, 58.1 FPS at High, and 55.8 FPS at Ultra. The 4K Low result is impressive, showing the GPU's ability to handle high pixel counts when settings are reduced. However, at 4K Ultra, the frame rate dips below 60 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily taxed. The jump from High to Ultra at 4K is only 2.3 FPS, meaning players can likely use Ultra without a significant penalty.

Resolution Scaling

Analyzing the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the drop from 161.7 FPS at 1080p to 131.2 FPS at 1440p is a 19% reduction, and further to 98.4 FPS at 4K is a 39% reduction from 1440p. This relatively gentle scaling at Low settings indicates that the CPU is a significant limiting factor, as the GPU has spare capacity to handle the increased pixel count without a proportional FPS drop.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is more dramatic: 93.4 FPS at 1080p, 71.7 FPS at 1440p (23% drop), and 55.8 FPS at 4K (22% drop from 1440p). The consistent reduction across resolutions at Ultra suggests the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck, as the increased shading and texture work scales directly with pixel count. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 42.6 FPS, which is larger than at 1080p (68.3 FPS difference), confirming that the GPU's workload expands significantly at higher resolutions.

This behavior indicates a balanced system: at 1080p, the CPU limits performance, preventing the GPU from reaching its full potential. At 4K, the GPU becomes the constraint, and the CPU's strong single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,943) is sufficient to keep up. The sweet spot for this combo appears to be 1440p, where the FPS at High (77.2 FPS) and Ultra (71.7 FPS) remains smooth without the extreme GPU stress seen at 4K. For players prioritizing high frame rates, 1080p Low delivers over 160 FPS, while 4K Ultra is still viable for a simulation experience.