Microsoft Flight Simulator

# CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 brings 8 cores and 16 threads to Microsoft Flight Simulator, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This is a Zen 3 architecture part on the Cezanne codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die. The 16 MB L3 cache and 512 KB L2 per core provide the data locality that flight simulation's scenery streaming and physics calculations frequently require.

The CPU's benchmark profile shows strong multi-threaded performance relative to its class. In Cinebench R23, it scores 20,655 multi-core and 2,916 single-core. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 6,628 and max-thread score of 6,617 indicate that scaling from 16 threads to the maximum thread count yields almost no additional performance — a sign that all cores are fully engaged under sustained load. Single-thread performance, measured at 901 in 3DMark single-thread and 1,907 in Geekbench single-core, is competitive but not class-leading.

The CPU's percentile vs. all CPUs stands at 78, placing it in the upper quarter of tested processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-2752TER (average score 25,530, delta −0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U (25,485, +0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H (25,550, −0.1%). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the Ryzen 7 5700 sits in a densely packed performance tier where small benchmark variations determine ranking order.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's 8-core/16-thread configuration matters because the sim's terrain and weather simulation workloads can spread across multiple threads. The measured FPS results show that at 1080p Low, the combination reaches 174 FPS average, while at 1080p Ultra it drops to 117 FPS. This 57 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at the same resolution suggests that CPU-side simulation work becomes more demanding as settings increase, but the CPU still maintains playable frame rates even at the most demanding preset.

The 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier (with a launch MSRP of $179) indicate that this CPU is designed for mainstream desktop use, and its performance characteristics align with that positioning. The data shows that the Ryzen 7 5700 provides sufficient computational headroom for the sim's single-thread-heavy components (as evidenced by the 901 single-thread 3DMark score) while also handling multi-threaded background tasks like scenery loading.

# GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD103 chip at TSMC's 5 nm process, containing 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. It operates with a base clock of 2205 MHz and a boost clock of 2505 MHz. The 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective). With 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, the GPU is a high-end part that ranks in the 86th percentile vs. all GPUs.

The GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth are directly relevant to Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering demands. The sim streams high-resolution terrain and aircraft textures continuously, and 16 GB of VRAM provides ample headroom for the Ultra preset at 4K resolution. The 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth supports the high texture throughput required for detailed cockpit interiors and ground scenery.

The RTX 4080's benchmark results reinforce its positioning. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 6,567. PassMark G3D shows 34,457, and Geekbench Vulkan reaches 263,779. The GPU's nearest rival is the RTX 4080 SUPER with an average score of 54,209 and a delta of +0.1%, making the two essentially identical in raw compute. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828, −1.1%) and AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, −2.6%) trail slightly in average score, though the deltas remain small.

In the measured FPS data for this game, the GPU's role becomes clear when comparing settings at the same resolution. At 4K, the Ultra preset yields 70 FPS average, while High produces 73 FPS, Medium 97 FPS, and Low 125 FPS. The relatively modest difference between Ultra and High (just 3 FPS) suggests that the GPU is not the primary bottleneck at these settings — the CPU's simulation workload limits the upper bound. Conversely, the jump from High to Medium (24 FPS improvement) indicates that reducing graphical load allows the GPU to complete frames faster, but the CPU still constrains the ceiling.

The GPU's 16 GB VRAM ensures that even at 4K Ultra, texture memory is not exhausted, which would otherwise cause stuttering or texture pop-in. The measured FPS data shows no min FPS anomalies at Ultra settings (min FPS values are only provided for Medium presets), suggesting stable frame delivery even under heavy graphical load.

# Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data provides FPS averages for four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) across three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K). The Medium preset offers the most balanced experience, with min and max FPS values recorded that indicate frame-time consistency: at 1080p Medium, the range is 135 to 183 FPS (average 159); at 1440p Medium, 112 to 152 FPS (average 132); and at 4K Medium, 83 to 112 FPS (average 97). These are the only rows with min/max data, which suggests the testing methodology captured full frame-time distributions for Medium — and the spread is tight, with roughly a 30 FPS gap between min and max at each resolution.

For users prioritizing visual fidelity, the High preset is nearly indistinguishable from Ultra in average FPS: at 1080p, High averages 123 FPS vs. Ultra's 117 FPS (a 5% difference); at 1440p, 99 FPS vs. 95 FPS (4% difference); and at 4K, 73 FPS vs. 70 FPS (4% difference). The Ultra preset thus costs only 4–5% performance over High across all resolutions, making it the better choice for users who want maximum detail without a meaningful FPS penalty.

The Low preset delivers the highest frame rates: 174 FPS at 1080p, 162 FPS at 1440p, and 125 FPS at 4K. However, the visual compromise is substantial, and the data shows that the step from Low to Medium costs 15 FPS at 1080p (174 to 159), 30 FPS at 1440p (162 to 132), and 28 FPS at 4K (125 to 97). These are larger percentage drops than the Medium-to-High transitions, indicating diminishing returns on the lower end of the settings spectrum.

The recommended preset depends on the target display. For 1080p displays, Ultra at 117 FPS is well above the 60 FPS threshold and provides the best visual quality. For 1440p, Ultra at 95 FPS maintains smooth gameplay with high detail. For 4K, the choice between High (73 FPS) and Ultra (70 FPS) is marginal — both are playable, and the 3 FPS difference is unlikely to be perceptible in flight simulation where frame pacing matters more than raw averages.

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 combination ranks 319th out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 8.6% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the balance between the CPU's 78th-percentile performance and the GPU's 86th-percentile performance, with the combo achieving a position that exceeds either component's individual percentile — a sign that the pairing is well-matched for this game's workload.

The rank of 319 out of 3,714 means that 3,395 other combos perform worse, while 318 perform better. This places the combo in the upper echelon of tested systems, though not at the absolute top — combos with higher-end CPUs (such as Ryzen 9 or Core i9 parts) or dual-GPU configurations would likely occupy the higher ranks. The data indicates that this combo is capable of running the sim at high settings across all resolutions, with the 4K Ultra row showing 70 FPS average being a particularly strong result for a flight simulator known for its demanding rendering.

The combo's ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data: at 4K Ultra, it achieves 70 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. The fact that the combo ranks in the top 9% suggests that users can expect a high-quality experience without needing to compromise on settings or resolution.

# FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 174, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 4K with Low settings, the average drops to 125 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54,247, while the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54,209, giving the RTX 4080 a 0.1% delta advantage. In practical terms, the two GPUs are effectively identical in performance.

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

A: The Ryzen 7 5700 scores 901 in 3DMark single-thread and 6,628 in 3DMark 16-thread. The single-thread score is 13.6% of the 16-thread score, indicating strong multi-thread scaling for its 8-core/16-thread design.

Q: Does the combo maintain playable FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes, the measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 70 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold typically considered playable for flight simulation.

Q: How much FPS is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the drop is from 174 FPS (1080p) to 125 FPS (4K), a 49 FPS reduction (28%). At Medium settings, the drop is from 159 FPS to 97 FPS, a 62 FPS reduction (39%). At High settings, the drop is from 123 FPS to 73 FPS, a 50 FPS reduction (41%). At Ultra settings, the drop is from 117 FPS to 70 FPS, a 47 FPS reduction (40%).

Q: What are the CPU's nearest rivals and how do they compare?

A: The Intel Xeon D-2752TER scores 25,530 (−0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U scores 25,485 (+0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H scores 25,550 (−0.1%). All three are within 0.3% of the Ryzen 7 5700's average score of 25,517.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, yielding 12 distinct configuration rows. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 174 FPS average, Medium 159 FPS (min 135, max 183), High 123 FPS, and Ultra 117 FPS. At 2560x1440, the averages are 162 FPS (Low), 132 FPS (Medium, min 112, max 152), 99 FPS (High), and 95 FPS (Ultra). At 3840x2160, the averages are 125 FPS (Low), 97 FPS (Medium, min 83, max 112), 73 FPS (High), and 70 FPS (Ultra).

The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data across all resolutions, showing consistent frame-time ranges: at 1080p the range spans 48 FPS (135 to 183), at 1440p it spans 40 FPS (112 to 152), and at 4K it spans 29 FPS (83 to 112). This narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently utilized, reducing frame-time variance.

The largest single FPS drop between adjacent settings occurs at 1440p between Low and Medium, where the average falls from 162 to 132 FPS (a 30 FPS or 18.5% reduction). The smallest drop is at 4K between High and Ultra, where the average falls from 73 to 70 FPS (a 3 FPS or 4.1% reduction). This pattern indicates that at lower resolutions, the CPU is more likely to be the limiting factor, while at higher resolutions the GPU's workload dominates and the incremental cost of Ultra over High is minimal.

# Resolution Scaling

Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K, the FPS at each settings preset shows distinct scaling patterns. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 174 (1080p) to 162 (1440p) to 125 (4K) — the 1440p step costs 12 FPS (6.9%), while the 4K step costs 37 FPS (22.8%). At Medium settings, the progression is 159 → 132 → 97, with drops of 27 FPS (17.0%) and 35 FPS (26.5%). At High settings, it's 123 → 99 → 73, with drops of 24 FPS (19.5%) and 26 FPS (26.3%). At Ultra settings, it's 117 → 95 → 70, with drops of 22 FPS (18.8%) and 25 FPS (26.3%).

The data reveals that the 1440p-to-4K transition consistently costs more FPS (percentage-wise) than the 1080p-to-1440p transition at every settings preset. This is expected behavior for a GPU-intensive workload, as 4K requires 2.25 times the pixel throughput of 1440p, and the RTX 4080's 16 GB VRAM and 716.8 GB/s bandwidth are being pushed harder at the higher resolution.

The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at each preset is: Low (28.2%), Medium (39.0%), High (40.7%), and Ultra (40.2%). The lower percentage drop at Low settings (28.2%) indicates that at Low, the CPU becomes a more significant bottleneck, capping the FPS ceiling regardless of resolution. At Medium, High, and Ultra, the GPU's rendering workload dominates, and the resolution scaling becomes more uniform — all three presets show roughly 39–41% reductions.

The limiting component analysis is clear: at 1080p and 1440p, the CPU's single-thread performance (901 in 3DMark single-thread) constrains maximum frame rates, as evidenced by the relatively small FPS differences between settings at these resolutions. At 4K, the GPU's rendering capacity becomes the primary constraint, and the FPS differences between settings widen, showing that the RTX 4080's compute and memory resources are being more fully utilized. The combo's 319th rank out of 3,714 combos is consistent with this analysis — the pairing is strong enough to handle 4K Ultra at 70 FPS, but not so powerful that it saturates the GPU at lower resolutions where CPU limits apply.