Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 7 7700 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT

The benchmark data for this combination shows a system that delivers playable frame rates across most settings, but with clear limitations at higher resolutions. The AMD Ryzen 7 7700, an 8-core/16-thread Zen 4 processor, pairs with the Radeon RX 6600 XT, a 7nm RDNA 2.0 GPU with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The measured results span three resolutions and four quality presets, revealing a pattern where the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases, while the CPU's strong single-thread performance keeps 1080p results respectable.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K demonstrates a classic GPU-bound scaling curve. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 101 at 1920x1080 to 81 at 2560x1440, then to 60 at 3840x2160. That is a 40.6% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The 1440p result at Low settings retains 80% of the 1080p performance, while 4K retains only 59.4%, showing a steeper decline as pixel count increases.

At Medium settings, the pattern holds with averages of 78 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.2%, and from 1440p to 4K is 25.4%. This suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading resources are increasingly saturated as resolution climbs. The RX 6600 XT's 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are adequate for 1080p but become stretched at 4K.

High settings show a narrower gap between resolutions: 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 20.3%, while 1440p-to-4K is 25.5%. Ultra settings follow a similar trajectory with 56, 45, and 33 FPS respectively, representing a 41.1% total decline from 1080p to 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across presets indicates that resolution scaling is governed by the GPU's raw throughput rather than any specific setting.

The minimum FPS values recorded at Medium settings provide additional insight. At 1080p, the minimum is 66 FPS with a maximum of 90, producing a 24 FPS variance. At 1440p, the minimum drops to 54 FPS with a 73 FPS maximum, a 19 FPS spread. At 4K, the minimum is 40 FPS and the maximum is 54 FPS, a 14 FPS spread. The tightening variance at higher resolutions suggests the GPU is more consistently saturated, reducing frame time spikes.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this CPU-GPU combination ranks 2571 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower third of all tested configurations, which is noteworthy given the CPU's strong synthetic benchmark scores. The Ryzen 7 7700 sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40081. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 at 40048 (0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 221E at 40144 (-0.2% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 9 270 at 40246 (-0.4% delta).

The GPU's percentile ranking is less impressive at 70th among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24442. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 at 24277 (0.7% delta), the Intel Arc A350M at 24647 (-0.8% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti at 24236 (0.8% delta). The combination of a high-percentile CPU with a mid-range GPU creates a system that is CPU-rich but GPU-limited in this flight simulator.

The combo rank of 2571 out of 3714 suggests that many other pairings achieve better performance in this specific game. Given that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for its demanding rendering workload, the RX 6600 XT's position relative to its rivals indicates that the GPU holds back the overall result. The CPU's 3DMark scores — 8484 for 16 threads and 1049 for single thread — show a capable processor, but the game's frame rates are dictated by the GPU's output.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT operates with a base clock of 1968 MHz and a boost clock of 2589 MHz, with a game clock rated at 2359 MHz. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth across a 128-bit bus. These specifications explain the observed frame rates: the memory bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming but becomes a bottleneck at 4K, particularly with higher quality presets.

The GPU's compute resources include 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 32 ray accelerators. Its pixel rate is 165.7 GPixel/s and texture rate is 331.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance of 10.60 TFLOPS places it in the mid-range tier, which aligns with the measured results. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 33 is below the 60 FPS threshold that most users consider smooth, while 4K Low achieves exactly 60 FPS.

The GPU benchmarks reflect this mid-range positioning. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1804, PassMark G3D score of 16461, and Geekbench Vulkan score of 72417 all indicate consistent performance. The DirectX 11 score of 163 and DirectX 12 score of 61 from PassMark show the card's ability to handle modern APIs, though the lower DirectX 12 score suggests some inefficiency in newer rendering paths.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 101 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS target. Medium settings average 78 FPS with a minimum of 66 and maximum of 90. High settings average 59 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings average 56 FPS, which is close to High but represents a 3 FPS penalty for the extra quality features.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 81 FPS, still comfortably above 60. Medium settings average 63 FPS with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73. High settings average 47 FPS, which falls below the smooth-play threshold. Ultra settings average 45 FPS, a 2 FPS reduction from High. The Medium preset at 1440p is the only quality level that maintains an average above 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become pronounced. Low settings average 60 FPS exactly, which is the minimum acceptable for smooth gameplay. Medium settings average 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 and maximum of 54. High settings average 35 FPS, and Ultra settings average 33 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 27 FPS, representing a 45% performance reduction for the highest quality preset.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, High settings at 59 FPS offers a good balance, though players seeking a locked 60 FPS should select Medium at 78 FPS. The Ultra preset at 56 FPS provides marginal visual improvements over High but risks dipping below 60 FPS in demanding scenes.

For 1440p, Medium settings at 63 FPS is the recommended choice, as it is the only preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS. The minimum of 54 FPS indicates some frame drops, but the overall experience remains playable. High settings at 47 FPS and Ultra at 45 FPS are too close in performance to justify the visual upgrade, and both fall below the smooth-play threshold.

At 4K, Low settings at 60 FPS is the only preset that achieves acceptable performance. Medium settings at 47 FPS may be tolerable for users who prioritize visuals over smoothness, but the minimum of 40 FPS suggests noticeable stuttering in complex scenes. High and Ultra settings at 35 and 33 FPS respectively are not recommended for gameplay, as they fall well below the 60 FPS target.

FAQ

Q: What is the best setting for 1080p gaming with this combo?

A: Medium settings deliver 78 FPS average with a minimum of 66 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. High settings at 59 FPS are close but may dip below 60 in demanding scenes.

Q: Can this system handle 4K resolution?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, which average exactly 60 FPS. Medium settings drop to 47 FPS, High to 35 FPS, and Ultra to 33 FPS, making higher presets unsuitable for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RX 6600 XT averages 24442 in benchmarks, which is 0.7% above the GTX 1630, 0.8% above the GTX 780 Ti, and 1.1% above the RTX 2080 SUPER. It trails the Arc A350M by 0.8%.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The Ryzen 7 7700 sits at the 87th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 40081. Its closest rival, the Ryzen AI 9 365, scores 40048, a 0.1% difference.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor, as frame rates decline consistently with resolution increases. The CPU's single-thread score of 1049 in 3DMark indicates sufficient processing power for the game's demands.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At 1080p, the minimum is 66 FPS. At 1440p, it drops to 54 FPS. At 4K, the minimum is 40 FPS. These values show increasing frame variance at lower resolutions due to less GPU saturation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 5nm TSMC process. It operates at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz, with a 65W TDP. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3.

The CPU's benchmark results demonstrate strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance. Cinebench R23 scores are 18760 for multi-core and 1930 for single-core. Geekbench scores are 15371 for multi-core and 2525 for single-core. PassMark multithread score is 34470 with a single-thread score of 4063. The 3DMark scores show scaling from 2043 for 2 threads to 8484 for 16 threads, indicating good thread utilization.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is less prominent than the GPU, given the game's rendering-heavy workload. The single-thread performance is sufficient to feed the GPU at 1080p, as evidenced by the 101 FPS at Low settings. At higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, and the CPU's extra headroom goes unused. The combination's rank of 2571 out of 3714 suggests that a stronger GPU would yield better results, while the CPU is not the primary constraint.