Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 7 5700G + AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT

This combination of AMD's Ryzen 7 5700G processor and Radeon RX 7700 XT graphics card delivers a broadly playable experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with measured frame rates that scale predictably across resolutions and quality presets. The 8-core, 16-thread Cezanne processor, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, pairs with the RDNA 3.0-based Navi 32 GPU to produce a system that handles the simulator's demanding rendering workloads, though the data reveals clear performance ceilings at higher resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 1,795 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 780th, placing it in the upper-middle tier of the database. The Ryzen 7 5700G's individual benchmark standing reinforces this positioning: it sits at the 83rd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,626. Its nearest rivals in the CPU database include the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, which scores 25,706 and trails by just 0.3%, and the Intel Xeon D-2752TER at 25,532, which this chip leads by 0.4%. The Intel Core 5 210H (25,490) and AMD Ryzen 5 7640U (25,485) round out the immediate competition, with this processor ahead of both by 0.5% and 0.6% respectively. These margins are razor-thin, indicating that the 5700G's compute performance is essentially on par with a cluster of modern mid-range and mobile parts.

On the GPU side, the RX 7700 XT achieves an average benchmark score of 30,097, placing it at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, which scores 30,109 — a 0% delta that effectively makes them identical in aggregate performance. The AMD Radeon RX 570 (30,158) and NVIDIA Tesla M60 (29,969) are also within striking distance, with deltas of -0.2% and 0.4% respectively, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (29,928) trails by 0.6%. This tight clustering suggests that the RX 7700 XT delivers competitive rasterization throughput for its class, though the Flight Simulator results will show how that translates to real-world gameplay.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7700 XT is built around the Navi 32 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. Its memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth — a configuration that proves adequate for Flight Simulator's large texture sets and streaming world data. The GPU's base clock runs at 1435 MHz, with a game clock of 2171 MHz and a boost clock of 2544 MHz, while memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective throughput.

In terms of raw output, the card delivers 35.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 549.5 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, with 3,456 shading units, 216 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The 54 ray accelerators provide some ray tracing capability, though Flight Simulator's primary rendering load falls on traditional rasterization. The GPU's measured benchmark scores include a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 3,316 and a Passmark G3D score of 22,547, the latter being the most relevant to this title's DirectX-based rendering path. The card's DirectX 11 Passmark score of 232 and DirectX 12 score of 79 indicate that the architecture is well-optimized for modern APIs, which aligns with the simulator's requirements.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear progression as resolution increases, with the most dramatic drops occurring between 1080p and 4K. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 sees average FPS fall from 139.4 to 111, a 20.4% reduction, while moving to 3840x2160 drops it further to 78.3, representing a 43.8% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This pattern indicates that at lower quality presets, the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the CPU has enough headroom to feed frames but the rendering pipeline struggles to keep up with increased pixel counts.

At High settings, the scaling is even more pronounced: 81 FPS at 1080p drops to 63.6 at 1440p (a 21.5% reduction) and then to 47.6 at 4K, a 41.2% reduction from the 1080p figure. The Ultra preset shows a similar trajectory, with 79.9 FPS at 1080p falling to 61.7 at 1440p and 43.7 at 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests that resolution scaling is largely GPU-bound; the CPU's 8-core configuration appears sufficient to maintain frame delivery without introducing a bottleneck that would flatten the curve. The fact that 1080p Ultra (79.9 FPS) nearly matches 1080p High (81 FPS) indicates that the processor is not the primary limiter even at the highest quality settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 139.4 FPS, which comfortably exceeds the refresh rate of most high-refresh monitors. Medium settings yield 105 FPS, still smooth for most displays. High settings drop to 81 FPS, and Ultra settings come in at 79.9 FPS — a surprisingly narrow gap between High and Ultra, suggesting diminishing returns from the additional quality features at this resolution. The 1080p data shows that the combo has substantial headroom for simulator use, where framerate consistency often matters more than raw peak performance.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS figures step down in a predictable fashion: Low produces 111 FPS, Medium 83.5, High 63.6, and Ultra 61.7. The Medium-to-High transition costs 19.9 FPS, while High-to-Ultra only costs 1.9 FPS, again indicating that the Ultra preset's additional effects have minimal impact on this particular configuration. At 1440p, the system remains playable across all settings, with even the most demanding preset staying above 60 FPS on average.

At 3840x2160, the performance picture becomes more constrained. Low settings deliver 78.3 FPS, Medium 61.7 FPS, High 47.6 FPS, and Ultra 43.7 FPS. The 4K results reveal that High and Ultra presets fall below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider the baseline for smooth gameplay, while Medium barely clears it. The Low preset at 4K remains viable, but the step from Medium to High costs 14.1 FPS, and High to Ultra costs another 3.9 FPS. These figures suggest that at 4K, users must make deliberate tradeoffs between visual fidelity and frame rate.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, the data supports using Ultra settings without hesitation. The 79.9 FPS average at Ultra is only 1.1 FPS lower than High, and the visual benefits of the highest preset are worth that negligible performance cost. Even the most demanding scenario — 1080p Ultra — leaves enough margin above 60 FPS for acceptable experience in Flight Simulator's dense urban environments or cloud-heavy weather systems.

At 1440p, Ultra settings remain viable at 61.7 FPS, though this sits close to the 60 FPS line. For users who prioritize consistent smoothness, High settings at 63.6 FPS offer a marginal improvement of 1.9 FPS, but the difference is unlikely to be perceptible. The Medium preset at 83.5 FPS provides significant headroom for users with high-refresh monitors, making it the recommended choice for competitive or fast-paced flying scenarios.

At 4K, the recommendation becomes more nuanced. Medium settings at 61.7 FPS represent the sweet spot, delivering acceptable frame rates while maintaining reasonable visual quality. High settings at 47.6 FPS may be acceptable for slower, more methodical flight simulators where occasional dips below 60 FPS are tolerable, but the drop from Medium to High is substantial. Low settings at 78.3 FPS provide the smoothest 4K experience but sacrifice significant visual detail. The data suggests that 4K users should default to Medium, then adjust upward only if their tolerance for lower frame rates is high. The 12 GB VRAM capacity ensures that even the Ultra preset at 4K does not exceed memory limits, so the FPS drops are purely compute-bound rather than capacity-related.