Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT

The measured frame rates for this pairing show a clear pattern: Microsoft Flight Simulator scales predictably with resolution and preset, but the GPU becomes the dominant constraint at higher pixel counts while the CPU holds its ground at 1080p. With a combo rank of 880 out of 1795 tested configurations, this system sits near the middle of the pack, and the data suggests it is a balanced pairing for this title at 1440p, with headroom at 1080p and diminishing returns at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 produces a substantial frame rate drop across every preset. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 126.9 at 1080p to 99.4 at 1440p, then to 73.9 at 4K. That represents a 41.8% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating the GPU is being pushed progressively harder as pixel count quadruples. At Medium settings, the drop is from 96.6 to 80.2 to 57.1, a 40.9% decline from 1080p to 4K. High settings show a similar trend: 74.4 at 1080p, 58.4 at 1440p, and 45.2 at 4K, a 39.2% reduction. Ultra settings, meanwhile, go from 69.5 at 1080p to 58.4 at 1440p to 39.4 at 4K, a 43.3% decline.

The pattern is consistent: each step up in resolution costs roughly 20-25% of the previous frame rate, regardless of preset. This uniform scaling strongly suggests the GPU is the limiting component at 4K, as the CPU workload (flight simulation physics, scenery loading, and object management) does not change with resolution. The fact that 1080p Low reaches 126.9 FPS while 4K Ultra languishes at 39.4 FPS — a 68.9% gap — indicates that the RX 6750 XT's rendering capacity, not the Ryzen 7 3700X's processing power, dictates the ceiling at higher resolutions.

Interestingly, the delta between presets at a given resolution is not uniform. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 57.4 FPS, while at 4K it narrows to 34.5 FPS. This compression at 4K further confirms GPU-bound behavior: when the GPU is saturated, the cost of raising settings is relatively smaller in absolute terms because the base frame rate is already low.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock of 2600 MHz and game clock of 2495 MHz are the key drivers of raw rasterization performance. The GPU's 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s, which directly influence how quickly Microsoft Flight Simulator can draw terrain, aircraft, and weather effects.

The 12 GB VRAM capacity is more than sufficient for this game at the tested resolutions, even at Ultra settings, since the measured data shows no anomalous frame rate collapses that would indicate memory swapping. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth does become a factor at 4K Ultra, where the 39.4 FPS average suggests the GPU is struggling to feed the large texture buffers required for high-resolution rendering. The GPU's percentile rank of 79 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35327, places it as a mid-to-upper tier part. Among its nearest rivals, the RX 6750 XT scores 0.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile, and 1.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. These small deltas indicate that performance in synthetic benchmarks translates to similar real-world behavior, which the measured FPS data corroborates.

At 1080p, the GPU's 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is enough to keep frame rates above 69 FPS even at Ultra, but the 4K results reveal the limits of the 192-bit memory interface. The gap between 1080p Low (126.9 FPS) and 4K Low (73.9 FPS) is 53.0 FPS, a 41.8% drop, which is larger than what a purely compute-bound scenario would produce — memory bandwidth is the bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: Can this pairing run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K smoothly?

A: The data shows 4K Ultra averages 39.4 FPS, while 4K High reaches 45.2 FPS. Both are below the 60 FPS threshold typically considered smooth, so 4K is not recommended for a fluid experience. 4K Low, at 73.9 FPS, is playable but sacrifices visual fidelity.

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

A: At 1440p, Medium hits 80.2 FPS and High reaches 58.4 FPS. At 1080p, High delivers 74.4 FPS and Ultra achieves 69.5 FPS. The data suggests 1440p Medium is the sweet spot for 60+ FPS, while 1080p Ultra offers a higher-quality image at 69.5 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 6750 XT compare to its closest GPU rivals in this game?

A: The RX 6750 XT's synthetic average score is 35327, which is 0.2% above the RX 5600M, 0.3% below the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile, and 1.3% below the RTX 3080. In practice, the measured FPS values fall in line with these small deltas, meaning performance differences would be within a few frames per second.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 3700X holding back the GPU at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the system reaches 126.9 FPS, which is well above what a CPU-bound scenario would show. The fact that frame rates scale down smoothly as resolution increases suggests the CPU is not the primary limiter at any tested resolution.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High averages 58.4 FPS and Ultra also averages 58.4 FPS. This identical result indicates that Ultra settings at 1440p do not impose an additional GPU cost beyond High, or that the game's Ultra preset hits a similar CPU or driver limit at this resolution.

Q: Does the 12 GB VRAM ever become a problem?

A: The measured data shows no FPS collapses or stutter patterns typical of VRAM exhaustion. At 4K Ultra, the 39.4 FPS average is a performance ceiling, not a memory failure, and the 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is the more likely constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the RX 6750 XT delivers 45.2 FPS on High, 73.9 FPS on Low, 57.1 FPS on Medium, and 39.4 FPS on Ultra. These figures show a monotonic decrease as settings increase, with the Ultra preset costing 14.7% more than High in terms of frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the results are 58.4 FPS on High, 99.4 FPS on Low, 80.2 FPS on Medium, and 58.4 FPS on Ultra. The High and Ultra presets produce identical averages, suggesting a plateau where the game engine or driver caps performance at this resolution. The jump from Low to Medium is 19.2 FPS, while Medium to High costs 21.8 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system reaches 74.4 FPS on High, 126.9 FPS on Low, 96.6 FPS on Medium, and 69.5 FPS on Ultra. The 1080p Low result is the highest measured frame rate across the entire dataset, and the 57.4 FPS gap between Low and Ultra is the largest preset delta at any resolution.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently provides the highest frame rates, with 1080p Low (126.9 FPS) being the only configuration to exceed 120 FPS. The Ultra preset never exceeds 69.5 FPS, which occurs at 1080p.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data strongly favors 1440p Medium as the best overall experience. At 2560x1440 Medium, the system averages 80.2 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold and only 19.2 FPS below the Low preset at the same resolution. The visual improvement from Low to Medium is substantial in a flight simulator, where terrain detail and cloud rendering benefit from higher settings, and the frame rate remains fluid.

For users prioritizing maximum visual fidelity, 1080p Ultra at 69.5 FPS is the better choice than 1440p Ultra at 58.4 FPS. The 11.1 FPS difference is meaningful, and at 1080p the 12 GB VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are less stressed, allowing the GPU to maintain higher utilization without memory bottlenecks.

At 4K, the data suggests sticking to Low settings (73.9 FPS) if frame rate is paramount, or accepting High (45.2 FPS) for a playable but not smooth experience. The 4K Ultra result of 39.4 FPS is below the 40 FPS mark and likely to feel sluggish during fast maneuvers or dense scenery.

The identical 58.4 FPS results at 1440p High and Ultra indicate that there is no benefit to selecting Ultra over High at this resolution — the extra settings do not improve frame rate, suggesting a CPU or driver limit. Therefore, 1440p High is redundant with Ultra, and Medium is the more sensible choice for a 60 FPS target.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, with 8 cores and 16 threads, operates at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC includes 32 MB of L3 cache, which is relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator's large world-streaming workloads. The CPU's passmark multithread score of 22458 and single-thread score of 2656 place it at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, indicating solid mid-range performance.

In the context of this game, the CPU's role is to manage the simulation's continuous physics calculations, AI traffic, and scenery streaming. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 126.9 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this engine. The identical 58.4 FPS results at 1440p High and Ultra suggest that the CPU, not the GPU, may be the limiting factor in that specific configuration, as the GPU would normally show a decrease between High and Ultra.

The Ryzen 7 3700X's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the Intel Core i5-12600 (0.1% higher score), Intel Core i5-12600H (0.1% higher), AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT (0.1% lower), and AMD EPYC 7203P (0.2% lower). These sub-1% deltas mean that any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator with the same GPU. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking, combined with its 16 threads, ensures it can handle the game's multithreaded workloads without becoming a bottleneck at 1440p or 4K, where the GPU is clearly the limiting factor.

The 65 W TDP and 51.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth are adequate for this title, and the data shows no evidence of memory bandwidth constraints from the CPU side. The CPU's average benchmark score of 28631, with a passmark integer math score of 66399 and floating point math score of 39005, indicates robust computational throughput for the simulation's arithmetic-heavy tasks.