Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 7 5700 compare to its closest rivals in aggregate benchmark performance?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700 scores 27,220 in its average benchmark, placing it 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-9900K (27,043), 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12700H (27,006), 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i7-1370P (27,006), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 (26,909). This places the CPU in the 84th percentile among all processors.

Q: What is the GPU's standing among all graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 39,647 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,703, -0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, +0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,836, -0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (39,879, -0.6% delta).

Q: What is the best average FPS achievable at 1080p with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 161.5 FPS average. This is the highest measured frame rate across all resolutions and settings in the data set. Medium settings deliver 124.5 FPS, High settings deliver 96.7 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 94 FPS at the same resolution.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra experience compare to 1080p Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 51.4, which is 45% lower than the 94 FPS seen at 1920x1080 Ultra. The 4K Ultra result is also 8% below the 4K High result of 55.7 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset imposes a significant additional load at high pixel counts.

Q: What are the memory specifications of the GPU and CPU?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 20.1 Gbps. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The GPU memory bandwidth is over 12 times higher than the CPU's memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the combo's rank within the game's benchmark database?

A: This specific CPU-GPU combination ranks 461st out of 1,795 total tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 26% of all configurations. The data is marked as measured (not estimated).

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear hierarchy of performance across presets. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 161.5 FPS, Medium produces 124.5 FPS, High produces 96.7 FPS, and Ultra produces 94 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 37 FPS (23% reduction), while the step from Medium to High costs another 27.8 FPS (22% reduction). The step from High to Ultra only costs 2.7 FPS (3% reduction). This suggests that High is a sweet spot at 1080p: it delivers nearly the same performance as Ultra while being only 2.7 FPS slower, but the visual upgrade from High to Ultra is often minimal in flight simulators.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low delivers 132.7 FPS, Medium delivers 104.8 FPS, High delivers 80.1 FPS, and Ultra delivers 74.3 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to 5.8 FPS (7% reduction), while the gap between Medium and High widens to 24.7 FPS (24% reduction). At 1440p, High offers a balanced experience: 80.1 FPS is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, and the cost of Ultra is modest. Medium is also viable at 104.8 FPS if visual fidelity is less critical.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more demanding. Low achieves 94.1 FPS, Medium achieves 72.6 FPS, High achieves 55.7 FPS, and Ultra achieves 51.4 FPS. The step from Medium to High costs 16.9 FPS (23% reduction), and the step from High to Ultra costs 4.3 FPS (8% reduction). At 4K, High is the recommended preset: 55.7 FPS is playable, and Ultra only gains 4.3 FPS while pushing the average below 55. Medium at 72.6 FPS provides a smoother experience if the user prioritizes frame rate over visual detail.

The data indicates that High settings provide the best balance across all resolutions. At 1080p, High is nearly identical to Ultra. At 1440p, High remains above 80 FPS. At 4K, High is the only preset above 55 FPS while maintaining reasonable visual quality. Users with 60 Hz displays should target High at 1080p or 1440p, while 4K users may prefer Medium (72.6 FPS) for a more consistent frame pacing.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the progression is 161.5 FPS at 1080p, 132.7 FPS at 1440p, and 94.1 FPS at 4K. This represents a 17.8% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 41.7% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the values are 124.5 FPS, 104.8 FPS, and 72.6 FPS, respectively — a 15.8% drop to 1440p and a 41.7% drop to 4K.

At High settings, the pattern is 96.7 FPS at 1080p, 80.1 FPS at 1440p, and 55.7 FPS at 4K. This is a 17.2% drop to 1440p and a 42.4% drop to 4K. At Ultra settings, the values are 94 FPS, 74.3 FPS, and 51.4 FPS, showing a 21% drop to 1440p and a 45.3% drop to 4K. The consistency of the 1080p-to-4K drop (roughly 42-45%) across all presets indicates that the frame rate scaling is primarily driven by resolution pixel count rather than settings complexity.

The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistently around 16-21%, which is smaller than the 1440p-to-4K drop. For example, at High settings, the 1440p-to-4K drop is 24.4 FPS (30.5%), compared to the 1080p-to-1440p drop of 16.6 FPS (17.2%). This disproportionate scaling suggests that the GPU becomes increasingly the limiting factor as resolution rises. At 1080p, the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads can feed the GPU adequately, but at 4K, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the bottleneck, especially with the RX 9070 XT's 380.2 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings widens at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 67.5 FPS. At 1440p, it is 58.4 FPS. At 4K, it is 42.7 FPS. This narrowing gap indicates that at 4K, even Low settings are constrained by the GPU's raw output, while at 1080p, lower settings allow the CPU to drive higher frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 161.5 FPS average, which is the only result above 160 FPS in the entire data set. Medium settings achieve 124.5 FPS, representing a 22.9% reduction from Low. High settings deliver 96.7 FPS, a 22.3% reduction from Medium. Ultra settings produce 94 FPS, just 2.8% below High. The 1080p results show a clear plateau between High and Ultra, suggesting that the CPU's single-thread performance (3,296 in PassMark single-thread) begins to cap the frame rate at these high values.

At 2560x1440, the results shift downward. Low settings achieve 132.7 FPS, which is a 17.8% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings deliver 104.8 FPS, a 21% drop from 1080p Medium. High settings reach 80.1 FPS, a 17.2% drop from 1080p High. Ultra settings produce 74.3 FPS, a 21% drop from 1080p Ultra. The 1440p results maintain a similar relative spacing between presets, with Medium being 21% below Low, High being 23.6% below Medium, and Ultra being 7.2% below High.

At 3840x2160, the system shows its limits. Low settings achieve 94.1 FPS, which is a 29% drop from the 1440p Low result. Medium settings deliver 72.6 FPS, a 30.7% drop from 1440p Medium. High settings reach 55.7 FPS, a 30.5% drop from 1440p High. Ultra settings produce 51.4 FPS, a 30.8% drop from 1440p Ultra. The 4K results show a consistent 29-31% reduction from 1440p across all settings, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth (644.6 GB/s) and pixel rate (380.2 GPixel/s) are the dominant constraints at this resolution.

The minimum and maximum FPS values are not provided in the data, so the analysis relies solely on average FPS. However, the consistency of the scaling patterns across resolutions and settings suggests stable performance characteristics. The 4K Ultra result of 51.4 FPS is the only measured average below 55 FPS, which may be noticeable for users with high refresh rate displays.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip on a 4 nm process. It features 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units, along with 64 ray tracing cores. The GPU's boost clock reaches 2970 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz and a base clock of 1660 MHz. These clock speeds, combined with the 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, provide a memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. The 4K data shows that the gap between Low (94.1 FPS) and Ultra (51.4 FPS) is 42.7 FPS, which is the smallest absolute gap across all resolutions. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is already saturated even at Low settings, and the Ultra preset adds only marginal load that reduces frame rate by 45.3% from the Low result. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 48.66 TFLOPS and texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s are substantial, but the flight simulator's complex scenery and weather rendering demand significant pixel throughput.

The GPU's 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 39,647, places it in the upper tier of graphics cards. Its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,703), NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568), AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,836), and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (39,879) — all score within 0.6% of the RX 9070 XT, indicating that the GPU's raw compute performance is well-matched to these competitors. However, in this game, the RX 9070 XT's 16 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for the high-resolution textures used in flight simulation, as the measured data does not indicate any memory-related stutters or performance cliffs.

The GPU's 304 W TDP and suggested 700 W PSU indicate a power-hungry card, but the measured FPS data shows that the card can sustain high frame rates across all settings. The 4K Ultra result of 51.4 FPS is the only sub-60 FPS average, which suggests that users aiming for 60 FPS at 4K should stick to High or Medium settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne codename) on a 7 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Its memory support is DDR4 in dual-channel mode with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

The CPU's benchmark scores show strong multi-threaded performance: 20,655 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 8,675 in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Its single-thread scores are also respectable: 2,916 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 3,296 in PassMark single-thread. The 3DMark scores scale well from 2 threads (1,762) to 16 threads (6,628), with the 16-thread score nearly matching the max-thread score of 6,617. This indicates good scaling across all 16 threads.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p. The 1080p results show that the gap between High (96.7 FPS) and Ultra (94 FPS) is just 2.7 FPS, while the gap between Medium (124.5 FPS) and High (96.7 FPS) is 27.8 FPS. This plateau at High and Ultra settings suggests that the CPU's single-thread performance begins to limit the frame rate at these high values, as the GPU has enough headroom to render more frames if the CPU could feed it faster. The CPU's 84th percentile ranking and its aggregate score of 27,220, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i9-9900K (27,043, 0.7% delta), indicate that it is a capable gaming processor.

At 1440p and 4K, the CPU's influence diminishes. The consistent 30% drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads are sufficient to handle the flight simulator's simulation and physics calculations, which are typically more CPU-intensive than other game genres. The 16 MB L3 cache helps with the large working set of flight simulation data, and the 65 W TDP allows for sustained boost clocks without thermal throttling.