Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and the AMD Radeon RX 580 produces a dataset that clearly illustrates the heavy burden placed on the graphics subsystem. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings tell a story of a system that is consistently GPU-limited, where even a capable eight-core processor cannot compensate for the graphics card's limitations at higher loads. The data reveals a playable experience only when expectations are carefully managed, particularly at lower resolutions and with reduced graphical fidelity.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K is a textbook demonstration of GPU-bound scaling. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 54 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same Low preset, the average drops to 43 FPS, a decline of approximately 20%. At 3840x2160, the average falls further to 32 FPS, representing another 25% reduction from the 1440p figure. This pattern of degradation is consistent with the GPU becoming the limiting factor, as the number of pixels being rendered increases dramatically.

The scaling behavior changes with higher settings. With the Medium preset, the averages are 42 FPS at 1080p, 34 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is about 40%, which is less severe than the Low preset's 41% drop but still substantial. However, the most telling data is at the High and Ultra presets. At High, the system produces 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and just 19 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset is even more demanding, yielding 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and a mere 18 FPS at 4K. The fact that the gap between 1080p and 4K performance narrows as settings increase suggests that the GPU is not just struggling with resolution, but also with the added shading and texture work.

This data implies that the AMD Radeon RX 580 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration. The Ryzen 7 5700X, with its high multi-threaded performance, is likely feeding frames faster than the GPU can render them, particularly at lower resolutions. The relatively modest FPS gains when dropping from 1440p to 1080p at High and Ultra settings (from 25 to 31 and 24 to 30, respectively) indicate that the GPU is saturated even at 1080p when the visual load is high. The limiting component is clearly the graphics card, as the CPU appears to have ample headroom to process the game's simulation and draw calls.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 54, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is this system capable of a smooth 60 FPS experience at any setting?

A: No. The data shows that no preset or resolution combination reaches an average of 60 FPS. The closest is the 54 FPS average at 1080p on Low.

Q: How much of a performance penalty is there when moving from 1080p to 4K on the Medium preset?

A: The average FPS drops from 42 at 1920x1080 to 25 at 3840x2160, a decrease of 17 FPS, which represents a roughly 40% reduction in performance.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields an average of 43 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields an average of 24 FPS. This shows a 19 FPS difference, indicating the Ultra preset is significantly more demanding.

Q: Does the data show any frame time consistency for the Medium preset?

A: Yes, the Medium preset is the only one with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p, the frame rate ranges from 36 to 48 FPS; at 1440p, it ranges from 29 to 39 FPS; and at 4K, it ranges from 21 to 29 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank against all other tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3376 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower percentile of systems for this specific game's performance.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the optimal experience hinges on a trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. For users prioritizing smoothness, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that approaches playable fluidity, with a 54 FPS average. This is the recommended starting point for any user with a standard 60Hz monitor who wants to minimize stutter and input lag.

If a higher resolution is desired, the data suggests that 2560x1440 on the Low preset is the only viable option, yielding a 43 FPS average. The Medium preset at 1440p, with a 34 FPS average, may be acceptable for users who prefer visuals over frame rate, but the 29 FPS minimum indicates potential for noticeable hitches during complex scenes. The Medium preset at 1080p, with a 42 FPS average and a 36 FPS minimum, offers a balanced middle ground, providing a moderate visual upgrade over Low while maintaining a more stable frame rate than High or Ultra.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended for a consistently smooth experience. At 1080p, they produce averages of 31 and 30 FPS, respectively, which are below the threshold for comfortable play in a simulation genre that requires precise control. At 1440p and 4K, these presets become nearly unplayable, with averages dipping to 25 and 19 FPS or lower. The data strongly suggests that users should avoid High and Ultra settings entirely with this hardware combination, as the visual gains do not justify the substantial performance cost.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 3376 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 9% of all configurations tested, which is a clear indicator of its performance limitations in this specific title. The rank reflects the overall average performance across all settings and resolutions, and the low position is primarily attributable to the GPU's inability to handle the game's high graphical demands.

This ranking is surprisingly low when considering the CPU's capabilities. The Ryzen 7 5700X scores in the 79th percentile among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 27578 is essentially identical to that of the Intel Core i5-12600K and AMD Ryzen 5 7600X. This suggests that the processor is not the source of the system's poor ranking. Instead, the AMD Radeon RX 580, which sits in the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, is the limiting factor. Its average benchmark score of 12928 is comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and GTX 1660 SUPER, but these are all older or lower-tier parts. The data implies that upgrading the graphics card would yield a dramatic improvement in the combo's rank, as the CPU has significant headroom to support a more powerful GPU.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X is a Zen 3 architecture processor with 8 cores and 16 threads. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it performs strongly, achieving a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13184 and a single-core score of 1499. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 26612 and single-thread score of 3385 further confirm its robust processing power. These numbers show a CPU that is well-equipped to handle complex simulations, which is relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy reliance on CPU calculations for flight physics and scenery generation.

However, the measured FPS data indicates that this CPU power is not being fully utilized in this game with this GPU. The fact that FPS does not scale well with resolution at higher settings suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck. For instance, the drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p is only from 54 to 30 FPS, which is a significant decrease, but the absolute numbers are low. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar FPS across different resolutions at the same settings. Instead, we see a clear drop in performance as resolution increases, which is the signature of a GPU bottleneck. The Ryzen 7 5700X is likely capable of delivering higher frame rates, but the RX 580 cannot render frames fast enough to keep up. The processor's high 3dmark 16-thread score of 6858 and 8-thread score of 5768 suggest it can handle the game's multi-threaded workload, but its potential is capped by the graphics card.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 54 FPS on Low, 42 FPS on Medium, 31 FPS on High, and 30 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a frame rate range of 36 to 48 FPS. At 2560x1440, the averages are 43 FPS on Low, 34 FPS on Medium, 25 FPS on High, and 24 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at this resolution has a range of 29 to 39 FPS. At 3840x2160, the averages drop to 32 FPS on Low, 25 FPS on Medium, 19 FPS on High, and 18 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K has a range of 21 to 29 FPS.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the Low preset is always the fastest, and the Ultra preset is always the slowest. The difference between Low and Ultra is 24 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K. This shrinking delta suggests that as resolution increases, the pixel fill rate becomes the dominant cost, and the savings from lower settings are diminished. All FPS figures are below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that this hardware is not suited for high-refresh-rate monitors in this game. Even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system cannot maintain a frame rate high enough for a 60Hz display without compromise.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is an older GCN 4.0 architecture GPU with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. It has a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz. Its compute capabilities include 2304 shading units and a texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s, with an FP32 performance of 6.175 TFLOPS. These specifications, while respectable for its time, place it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, and its average benchmark score of 12928 is comparable to lower-end mobile and older desktop parts.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is the clear performance limiter. The low average FPS across all settings and resolutions is a direct result of the RX 580's inability to handle the game's complex rendering workload. The game's reliance on detailed textures and dynamic lighting places a heavy load on the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading units. The measured FPS at 4K, which never exceeds 32 FPS even on Low, highlights the card's struggle with high pixel counts. The fact that the performance difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 1 FPS (31 vs 30) suggests that the GPU is already saturated and cannot handle the additional visual effects. The 8 GB of VRAM is likely sufficient for most settings, but the processing power is inadequate. The data indicates that this GPU is a legacy component that severely limits the overall gaming experience in this modern simulation title.