Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT delivers a playable, though not flawless, Microsoft Flight Simulator experience that scales predictably with resolution. The data shows a clear progression from 1080p through 4K, with the most significant performance drop occurring at the highest resolution. At 1080p, the combo achieves a robust 123.8 FPS on Low settings, which falls to 100.7 FPS at 1440p and 74.4 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K on Low settings, indicating that the GPU becomes increasingly constrained as pixel count rises. The trend is consistent across all quality presets, with High settings dropping from 73.8 FPS at 1080p to 41.5 FPS at 4K, a 44% decrease. This scaling pattern suggests that while the CPU maintains adequate frame pacing at lower resolutions, the GPU's rendering workload dominates at 4K, creating a bottleneck that caps performance well below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth simulation.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU workload shifts across resolutions. At 1080p, the system delivers 123.8 FPS on Low, 96.1 FPS on Medium, 73.8 FPS on High, and 71.7 FPS on Ultra. These figures indicate that the CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at this resolution, as the gap between Low and Ultra is only 42%. Moving to 1440p, the scores become 100.7 FPS on Low, 80.2 FPS on Medium, 60.0 FPS on High, and 55.7 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p averages around 20% across presets, showing a moderate GPU load increase. At 4K, the performance collapses to 74.4 FPS on Low, 54.5 FPS on Medium, 41.5 FPS on High, and 40.2 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show a much steeper decline, with Ultra being 68% slower than 1080p Ultra. This pattern confirms that the RX 6750 XT's 12 GB memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth become the limiting factors at 4K, as the sheer pixel throughput required overwhelms the GPU's compute resources.

The resolution scaling also highlights the diminishing returns of lowering settings at higher resolutions. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low yields a 73% FPS improvement, but at 4K, the same settings change yields only an 85% improvement. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily saturated that even reducing graphical fidelity cannot fully compensate for the pixel count. The 4K Low score of 74.4 FPS is still playable, but the 4K High and Ultra scores of 41.5 FPS and 40.2 FPS respectively fall below the 60 FPS target that many flight sim enthusiasts prefer for smooth scenery panning. The data indicates that 1440p is the sweet spot for this combo, as it maintains 60 FPS on High settings while offering a substantial visual upgrade over 1080p.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6750 XT is the primary driver of frame rate in this configuration, particularly at higher resolutions. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1440p High settings but becomes strained at 4K. The GPU's boost clock of 2600 MHz and game clock of 2495 MHz allow it to sustain high throughput, but the 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs are simply not enough to maintain 60 FPS at 4K Ultra. The benchmark results show the GPU's compute capabilities: 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2548. These figures place the GPU in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which is only 1.3% faster on average. However, in this game, the RX 6750 XT's performance at 4K Ultra (40.2 FPS) suggests that the simulation's complex rendering pipeline, including volumetric clouds and terrain tessellation, heavily taxes the GPU's texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s.

The GPU's memory capacity plays a crucial role in this game's high-resolution performance. At 4K, flight simulators often need to load large texture sets for terrain and aircraft models. The 12 GB frame buffer is sufficient for 4K High, but the 4K Ultra preset likely pushes memory usage near capacity, causing the 41.5 FPS High and 40.2 FPS Ultra scores to converge. The 74.4 FPS at 4K Low demonstrates that when memory pressure is reduced, the GPU can still deliver playable frame rates. The RX 6750 XT's 40 ray accelerators and DirectX 12 Ultimate support provide features that the game can utilize, but the measured data suggests that traditional rasterization performance is the primary bottleneck. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 20700 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 107621 confirm its mid-range positioning, making it a capable 1440p performer but a marginal 4K option for this title.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G provides a solid foundation for this simulation, with 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz deliver strong single-threaded performance, which is critical for flight simulators that rely heavily on main-thread logic. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20755 and single-core score of 2930 indicate that it can handle the game's complex physics and AI calculations without becoming a bottleneck at lower resolutions. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 6629 and single-thread score of 899 further confirm balanced performance across workloads. The CPU's 16 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) provide sufficient data throughput for the game's streaming terrain data.

However, the CPU's role becomes less prominent as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU must work harder to feed frames to the GPU, and the 123.8 FPS Low score suggests it can keep up with the RX 6750 XT's output. At 4K, the CPU's workload per frame decreases relative to the GPU's rendering time, so the 5700G has more idle time. The benchmark data shows the CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, which is only 0.3% slower on average. This means the 5700G is slightly ahead of a mobile processor in synthetic tests, but in this game, the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads provide enough parallelism for the game's background tasks, such as airport traffic and weather simulation. The PassMark multithread score of 24419 and physics score of 999 indicate that the CPU handles the game's non-graphics workloads efficiently, allowing the GPU to remain the primary performance limiter.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing ranks 907th out of 1795 combos, placing it in the 50th percentile of all systems tested. This mid-pack ranking reflects the balanced but not exceptional nature of the hardware. The CPU and GPU both sit in the upper-middle tier of their respective categories, but neither is a flagship component. The combo's ranking means that roughly half of all tested systems outperform it, while half perform worse. In practical terms, this translates to the measured FPS figures: the system can achieve 60 FPS at 1440p High, but it cannot maintain that standard at 4K Ultra. The ranking data also shows that the combo outperforms many older or lower-end pairings but falls short of high-end systems with more powerful GPUs or newer CPUs. The 907th rank suggests that users seeking a consistent 60 FPS at 4K in this game would need to look at higher-ranked combinations, while those targeting 1080p or 1440p gaming will find this setup sufficient.

The combo's ranking is influenced by both component choices. The RX 6750 XT's 79th GPU percentile and the 5700G's 83rd CPU percentile indicate that the CPU is relatively stronger than the GPU. This imbalance means that in CPU-bound scenarios, such as low-resolution gameplay with high object density, the system performs better than its GPU score would suggest. Conversely, at 4K, the GPU's limitations drag the overall ranking down. The combo rank of 907 out of 1795 is a useful metric for buyers comparing systems, as it provides a single number to gauge expected performance. The data also shows that this combo sits close to other mid-range pairings, and the 60 FPS at 1440p High result is a benchmark achievement that many lower-ranked systems cannot match.

Settings Recommendations

For the best balance of visual quality and frame rate, the data strongly supports 1440p Medium or High settings. At 1440p Medium, the system delivers 80.2 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth simulation and provides a 33% performance cushion for complex scenes. The 1440p High setting at 60.0 FPS is the exact target for many users, but it leaves no headroom for dense urban areas or heavy weather effects. For users who prioritize smoothness over visuals, 1440p Low at 100.7 FPS offers excellent responsiveness, though the reduced draw distance and simplified textures may detract from the simulation experience. At 1080p, any setting from Medium (96.1 FPS) to Ultra (71.7 FPS) is playable, but the visual upgrade to 1440p is significant enough to justify the resolution switch.

At 4K, the data shows that only Low settings (74.4 FPS) provide a truly playable experience, while Medium (54.5 FPS), High (41.5 FPS), and Ultra (40.2 FPS) all fall below 60 FPS. Users who insist on 4K should either accept the Low preset or consider lowering render scaling options, though the measured data does not include such settings. The 4K Medium score of 54.5 FPS is borderline playable for a flight sim, but the 40.2 FPS Ultra result will likely cause noticeable stutter during fast maneuvers. The recommended configuration is 1440p High, which delivers exactly 60 FPS and offers a compelling combination of detail and fluidity. This setting leverages the GPU's 12 GB memory effectively without exceeding its compute limits, and the CPU has sufficient headroom to handle the game's simulation logic. Users with high-refresh-rate monitors may prefer 1440p Medium for its 80.2 FPS output, while those with 4K displays should prioritize 1440p upscaled or 4K Low for the best experience.