Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G compare to its nearest CPU rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700G scores 27,051 in the average benchmark score, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i9-9900K (27,097, deltaPct -0.2%), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 (26,936, deltaPct 0.4%), and the Intel Core i5-14400T (27,166, deltaPct -0.4%). The Intel Core i7-1370P trails slightly at 26,900 (deltaPct 0.6%). This places the CPU in the 79th percentile among all tested CPUs.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to its closest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 has an average benchmark score of 23,877, putting it in the 69th percentile. It edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z (23,736, deltaPct 0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (23,628, deltaPct 1.1%), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (24,063, deltaPct -0.8%) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170, deltaPct -1.2%) by small margins.

Q: What is the best measured average FPS for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 155 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest is 51 at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. Between these extremes, the data shows a consistent scaling pattern across resolutions and quality presets.

Q: Are there any measured FPS rows that include minimum and maximum FPS values?

A: Yes, only the Medium settings rows include both minimum and maximum FPS data. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 103 to 139 FPS (avg 121). At 2560x1440 Medium, it is 83 to 112 FPS (avg 97). At 3840x2160 Medium, it is 61 to 83 FPS (avg 72). All other settings rows list only the average FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combos for this game?

A: The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 1,098 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the upper portion of the distribution, roughly in the 70th percentile of all tested systems.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's clock behavior is notable: a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and a boost clock of 2520 MHz. The memory runs at 2518 MHz, which translates to 20.1 Gbps effective. These specifications matter for Microsoft Flight Simulator because the game streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data, making memory bandwidth a critical resource.

The measured FPS data suggests that the GPU's memory subsystem is working hard, particularly at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is substantial: Low averages 92 FPS while Ultra drops to 51 FPS. This 41 FPS spread indicates that the GPU is the primary scaling factor when moving through quality presets at 4K. The 16 GB frame buffer is likely sufficient for the game's high-resolution textures, but the 644.6 GB/s bandwidth becomes a limiting factor as pixel count increases.

Interestingly, the GPU's benchmark profile shows strong compute performance — 36.13 TFLOPS FP32 and a PassMark G3D score of 25,381 — yet the game results at 4K Ultra show only 51 FPS. This suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering workload is not purely compute-bound; rather, it stresses the memory interface and rasterization pipeline. The RDNA 4.0 architecture with 3,584 shading units and 128 ROPs handles the game's draw calls, but the data implies that the 4K Ultra preset demands more than raw throughput.

The percentile ranking of 69th among all GPUs contextualizes the RX 9070 as a mid-to-upper tier card. Its nearest rivals, such as the RTX 2080 SUPER and RX 6800S, all fall within a narrow band of scores, confirming that the RX 9070 is competitive but not class-leading. In this game, the GPU's role becomes more pronounced as settings increase, with the 4K results showing the clearest evidence of GPU-bound behavior.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling that points to the GPU as the dominant limiting component. Starting at 1920x1080, the average FPS across all settings ranges from 86 (Ultra) to 155 (Low). Moving to 2560x1440, the same settings show a drop: Ultra falls to 70 FPS and Low to 125 FPS. At 3840x2160, the figures decline further: Ultra reaches 51 FPS and Low 92 FPS.

The percentage drops are telling. From 1080p to 1440p, the Low setting loses 30 FPS (155 to 125), which is a 19% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, Low loses another 33 FPS (125 to 92), a 26% reduction. For Ultra, the drops are 16 FPS (86 to 70) from 1080p to 1440p, and 19 FPS (70 to 51) from 1440p to 4K. These proportional declines indicate that the GPU's rendering capacity is being consumed at a steady rate as pixel count increases.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see a plateau in FPS as resolution increases, with the GPU headroom being absorbed. Instead, the FPS continues to drop consistently, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. The Ryzen 7 5700G, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, appears to be keeping pace with the GPU's output demands, as evidenced by the smooth scaling curve.

However, the Medium settings rows provide additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the minimum FPS is 103, which is close to the Low average of 155. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 83, and at 4K Medium, it is 61. These minimums suggest that there are moments of significant frame time spikes, likely due to the game's complex scenery loading. The gap between minimum and average FPS widens at higher resolutions, indicating that the GPU's frame pacing becomes less consistent as the workload grows.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a full range of settings. Low settings produce an average of 155 FPS, which is the highest measured in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 121 FPS, with a minimum of 103 and maximum of 139. High settings average 91 FPS, and Ultra settings average 86 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 69 FPS, indicating that the quality presets have a significant impact on performance at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 125 FPS, Medium at 97 FPS (minimum 83, maximum 112), High at 73 FPS, and Ultra at 70 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread here is 55 FPS. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset at 1440p does not add much rendering cost over High, but the jump from Medium to High is substantial at 24 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 92 FPS, Medium at 72 FPS (minimum 61, maximum 83), High at 54 FPS, and Ultra at 51 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread is 41 FPS. The data shows that at 4K, the High and Ultra presets converge to nearly the same performance, with only 3 FPS separating them. This indicates that the GPU is reaching a hard limit around 51-54 FPS regardless of the minor differences between High and Ultra.

The Medium settings rows are the only ones with complete min/max data, revealing frame time consistency. At 1080p, the range is 36 FPS (103 to 139). At 1440p, the range is 29 FPS (83 to 112). At 4K, the range is 22 FPS (61 to 83). The absolute range narrows as resolution increases, but the relative variance (range divided by average) actually grows: 30% at 1080p, 30% at 1440p, and 31% at 4K. This suggests that frame pacing remains proportionally consistent across resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 121 FPS average with a minimum of 103 FPS, which is well above the threshold for smooth gameplay. The High preset drops to 91 FPS, and Ultra to 86 FPS. Given that Medium provides a minimum of 103 FPS — ensuring no noticeable stutter — it represents the best balance of visual quality and performance at this resolution. The jump to High costs 30 FPS on average, which is a significant trade-off for marginal visual gains.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 97 FPS with a minimum of 83 FPS. This remains a strong choice for smooth gameplay. The High preset at 73 FPS is playable but approaches the territory where frame drops might become noticeable. Ultra at 70 FPS is nearly identical to High, so there is no reason to choose High over Ultra if visual fidelity is the priority — the 3 FPS difference is negligible. The data suggests that Medium is the safest recommendation at 1440p, with Ultra being a viable alternative for those who prioritize visuals over the safety margin.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically. Medium averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS, which is still within a playable range. High drops to 54 FPS and Ultra to 51 FPS. The Ultra preset's 51 FPS average is below the standard 60 FPS target, and the lack of minimum FPS data for Ultra means we cannot assess its frame consistency. The Medium preset at 4K offers 72 FPS average and a minimum of 61 FPS, making it the only 4K preset that consistently stays above 60 FPS. This makes Medium the clear recommendation for 4K gaming.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Medium settings provide the best balance between visual quality and performance, with the highest minimum FPS values recorded. The Low preset offers higher averages but sacrifices visual fidelity, while High and Ultra provide diminishing returns as resolution increases.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G is a Zen 3 architecture processor on the Cezanne codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The CPU has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows strong multi-threaded performance: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 12,830.5, and 3DMark 16-thread scores 6,629. Single-thread performance is also solid, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 1,494 and 3DMark single-thread at 899. The PassMark multithread score of 24,419 and single-thread score of 3,283 further confirm balanced performance across both metrics.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the game's simulation logic, which includes weather systems, flight physics, and AI traffic. The game is known to be demanding on CPU resources, particularly in scenarios with dense scenery or complex weather. The 5700G's 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample parallelism for these tasks. The 3.80 GHz base clock and 4.60 GHz boost clock offer sufficient single-thread performance for the game's main simulation loop, which often relies on a few heavily loaded threads.

The measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at any resolution. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see similar FPS across all resolutions, as the CPU's workload would be unchanged regardless of pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops consistently from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases. The CPU's 79th percentile ranking among all CPUs, and its close scores to the Intel Core i9-9900K and other rivals, confirm that it is a capable processor for this game.

The CPU's integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics are irrelevant for this analysis, as the system uses the discrete RX 9070. The PCIe Gen 3 interface (16 lanes) provides sufficient bandwidth for the GPU, though the RX 9070 is designed for PCIe 5.0. This does not appear to impact performance, as the measured FPS results are consistent with the GPU's capabilities.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and AMD Radeon RX 9070 ranks 1,098 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the 70.4th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms roughly 70% of the tested configurations.

To contextualize this ranking, consider the individual component percentiles. The CPU sits in the 79th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 69th percentile among all GPUs. The combo ranking of approximately 70th percentile is slightly below the CPU's standalone percentile but above the GPU's standalone percentile. This suggests that the system's overall performance in this game is slightly constrained by the GPU, which aligns with the resolution scaling analysis showing GPU-bound behavior at higher resolutions.

The ranking of 1,098 out of 3,714 indicates that this is a mid-to-upper tier configuration for this game. It is not among the top performers, which would likely feature higher-end CPUs and GPUs, but it is also not in the lower half. The data shows that this combo can achieve 155 FPS at 1080p Low and 121 FPS at 1080p Medium, which are respectable numbers for a 1080p gaming experience. At 4K, the combo manages 72 FPS on Medium settings, which is playable but not optimal.

The gap between the CPU's 79th percentile and the combo's 70th percentile ranking suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the combo ranking to be closer to the GPU's percentile. Instead, the combo ranks closer to the GPU, confirming that the RX 9070 is what holds this system back from higher performance tiers in this game.

The data also implies that upgrading the GPU would yield more significant gains than upgrading the CPU. The 5700G's strong multi-threaded and single-threaded scores, combined with its 79th percentile ranking, suggest it has headroom to support a more powerful GPU. Conversely, the RX 9070's 69th percentile ranking and the observed GPU-bound scaling at higher resolutions indicate that it is the component that limits the system's overall performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator.