Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT lands at rank 1674 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the upper half of all tested combos, roughly at the 55th percentile mark for this specific title. The ranking reflects a pairing that is well-matched for the simulation's demands, though it is not at the top tier where flagship processors and graphics cards reside.

To contextualize this rank, the CPU component alone sits at the 79th percentile against all tested processors, while the GPU sits at the 71st percentile against all tested graphics cards. The combination rank of 1674 being slightly lower than either individual percentile suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's workload characteristics do not perfectly align with the strengths of this specific pairing. The game's heavy reliance on single-thread performance for simulation logic, combined with its need for sustained GPU throughput in rendering dense scenery, creates a scenario where the combo's overall standing is a blend of those two capabilities.

The data shows that this combo outperforms 2040 other tested configurations, which is a substantial margin. In practical terms, this means the system is capable of delivering a playable experience at most settings, but the measured FPS figures reveal where the bottlenecks emerge. The rank is neither a standout nor a disappointment; it is a workmanlike position that reflects a balanced mid-range to upper-mid-range build. For users seeking high frame rates at 1080p, this combo delivers comfortably, but for 4K Ultra presets, the limitations become evident, which aligns with the rank's position in the overall distribution.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The GPU's boost clock is rated at 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz and a base clock of 2150 MHz. These specifications translate to a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 13.31 TFLOPS.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is primarily to render the vast draw distances, terrain detail, and atmospheric effects. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is a significant asset here; the game's high-resolution textures for aircraft, airports, and world scenery can consume substantial memory, and the data shows that the card handles this without apparent capacity-related stutters in the measured runs. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming from VRAM to the render pipeline proceeds without becoming a limiting factor at the tested settings.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 71 against all GPUs indicates it sits above most competing cards but below the top tier. In the measured FPS data, the GPU becomes the primary limiter at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 42, which is a clear indication that the GPU's compute and memory resources are saturated. The GPU's 40 ray accelerator cores are present, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's default rendering paths in the tested settings do not appear to leverage ray tracing heavily, as the FPS deltas between Low and Ultra at each resolution are consistent with traditional rasterization load scaling.

The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database—such as the AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD FirePro W7100—are older or workstation-oriented parts, and the RX 6750 XT outperforms them by margins of 0.5% to 0.7%. More notably, it leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile by 1.1%, which underscores that this desktop card holds its own against a high-end mobile part. However, these rivals are not representative of the current competitive landscape; they simply reflect the closest average benchmark scores in the database, and the RX 6750 XT's standing in this game is more meaningfully assessed by its measured FPS at each resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 127 at 1080p to 102 at 1440p, then to 75 at 4K. That represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 26% drop from 1440p to 4K. This scaling behavior indicates that at Low settings, the CPU is still contributing significantly to the frame rate, as the GPU has ample headroom to render frames quickly at lower resolutions.

At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 99 at 1080p to 79 at 1440p, then to 59 at 4K. The drops are 20% and 25%, respectively, which is a similar proportional decline to Low settings. The min FPS figures at Medium show 84 at 1080p, 68 at 1440p, and 50 at 4K, indicating that frame pacing remains consistent even as the resolution increases, with no sudden dips that would suggest a memory or bandwidth cliff.

At High settings, the average FPS is 74 at 1080p, 60 at 1440p, and 44 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19%, and from 1440p to 4K is 27%. At Ultra settings, the numbers are 71 at 1080p, 57 at 1440p, and 42 at 4K, with drops of 20% and 26%. The similarity in the proportional drops across all settings—roughly 20% for the first step and 26% for the second—strongly suggests that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions.

The data indicates that the transition from 1440p to 4K imposes a heavier relative cost than the transition from 1080p to 1440p, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario. The pixel count increase from 1080p to 1440p is 78%, while from 1440p to 4K it is 125%, yet the FPS drops are not proportional to those pixel count increases. This implies that at 1080p, the CPU is partially limiting the frame rate, preventing the GPU from reaching its full potential. As resolution rises, the GPU takes over as the bottleneck, and the FPS declines become more uniform across settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience balances visual fidelity with smooth frame rates. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 71 FPS, which is only 3 FPS lower than High at 74 FPS. The jump from Medium (99 FPS) to High (74 FPS) costs 25 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS. This suggests that at 1080p, the Ultra preset is nearly free in performance terms relative to High, making it the recommended choice for users with 1080p displays who want maximum visual quality without sacrificing much frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the situation shifts. High produces 60 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 57 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is again minimal at 3 FPS, but the drop from Medium (79 FPS) to High (60 FPS) is a more significant 19 FPS. For a target of 60 FPS or above, High at 1440p is the sweet spot, as it maintains a playable average with better visual quality than Medium. Ultra at 1440p dips to 57 FPS, which is still playable but falls marginally below the 60 FPS threshold that many users prefer.

At 3840x2160, the measured data shows that Medium is the highest setting that maintains an average above 55 FPS, coming in at 59 FPS with a min of 50 FPS. High drops to 44 FPS average, and Ultra to 42 FPS. For 4K users, Medium is the recommended preset, as it provides a playable experience with a minimum above 50 FPS. High and Ultra at 4K are technically playable but may feel less smooth during demanding scenery transitions, given the lower averages and the absence of min FPS data for those settings.

The overall recommendation is to use Ultra at 1080p, High at 1440p, and Medium at 4K to achieve the best measured balance of frame rate and visual quality. The data does not show any advantage to using Low settings except for users who prioritize frame rate above all else, since Low at 1080p reaches 127 FPS average, which is substantially higher than any other preset at that resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the average FPS figures across settings are: Low at 127, Medium at 99, High at 74, and Ultra at 71. The Medium preset also reports a min FPS of 84 and a max of 113, providing a range of 29 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a total reduction of 56 FPS, or 44% of the Low value. The step from Low to Medium costs 28 FPS, from Medium to High costs 25 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS. This last step is notable because it suggests that the Ultra preset at 1080p does not impose a significant additional load on the GPU compared to High, making it a nearly free upgrade in visual terms.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low at 102, Medium at 79, High at 60, and Ultra at 57. Medium again reports a min of 68 and max of 91, a range of 23 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 23 FPS, from Medium to High is 19 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 3 FPS. The pattern repeats, with Ultra being only 3 FPS slower than High. The total reduction from Low to Ultra is 45 FPS, or 44% of the Low value, which is proportionally identical to the 1080p result.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low at 75, Medium at 59, High at 44, and Ultra at 42. Medium reports a min of 50 and max of 67, a range of 17 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 16 FPS, from Medium to High is 15 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 2 FPS. The total reduction from Low to Ultra is 33 FPS, or 44% of the Low value. This consistent 44% reduction across all three resolutions from Low to Ultra is a clear indicator that the settings scaling is uniform, and that the GPU's relative performance at each preset does not change with resolution.

The min FPS data, available only for Medium settings, shows that the gap between min and average widens as resolution increases: 15 FPS at 1080p, 11 FPS at 1440p, and 9 FPS at 4K. This narrowing gap suggests that frame pacing becomes more consistent at higher resolutions, possibly because the GPU is more uniformly loaded and less prone to sudden spikes in demand.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, code-named Vermeer, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and it connects via PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical for the simulation's core logic, including flight dynamics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The benchmark results for the 5700X show a single-thread score of 1499 in Cinebench R23 and a multi-thread score of 13184. The single-thread performance is particularly relevant for this game, as simulation engines often have a primary thread that cannot be fully parallelized. The 3dmark single-thread score of 921 and 2-thread score of 1821 indicate that the CPU's performance on lightly threaded workloads is solid but not exceptional.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 79 against all CPUs places it in the upper quintile, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12600K with a delta of 0%, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 with a delta of 0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X with a delta of -0.2%. These rivals are all within a narrow band of average benchmark scores, suggesting that the 5700X is competitive with these mid-range to upper-mid-range parts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is also within 0.3%, indicating that mobile parts are approaching this desktop CPU's performance.

The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the limiting factor, as the GPU would be capable of higher frame rates than 127 FPS if it were fully utilized. The fact that the FPS drops by 20% from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, but only by 26% from 1440p to 4K, suggests that the CPU's influence diminishes as resolution increases. At 4K Ultra, the CPU is almost certainly not the bottleneck, as the GPU is saturated at 42 FPS. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at all tested settings, meaning that no core count or thread count related stutters are evident in the data.

FAQ

Q: What is the combo's overall rank in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT ranks 1674 out of 3714 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the upper half of all tested systems.

Q: Which settings preset provides the best experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset yields an average of 60 FPS, which is the recommended balance. Ultra drops to 57 FPS, while Medium is 79 FPS but with lower visual quality.

Q: How much faster is the 5700X than the Intel Core i5-12600K?

A: The 5700X and the i5-12600K have identical average benchmark scores, with a deltaPct of 0%, meaning they perform equally in the aggregate benchmark data.

Q: Does the GPU outperform the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile?

A: Yes, the RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score that is 1.1% higher than the RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, according to the nearest rivals data.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS recorded is 50, with an average of 59 and a maximum of 67.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely the bottleneck at 1080p Low?

A: The data suggests the CPU is the limiter at 1080p Low, where the average FPS is 127. The GPU's performance at higher resolutions indicates it could render more frames if the CPU allowed it.