Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT lands at rank 1,674 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the 55th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of the combinations in the database for this specific title. The ranking reflects a balanced pairing where neither component is dramatically mismatched against the other, though the data suggests the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1,674 out of 3,714 positions this system in the upper-middle tier of tested configurations. This is not a top-tier setup for Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it is far from the bottom of the pack. The ranking indicates that this pairing can handle the game's demands at moderate settings, but it will struggle to maintain high frame rates at maximum quality presets.

Looking at the individual component percentiles, the CPU sits at the 87th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 71st percentile against all GPUs. This gap is telling: the Ryzen 7 7700 is a comparatively stronger component than the RX 6750 XT. In a game like Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy CPU simulation work, this balance matters. The data shows that at lower resolutions, the CPU's strength helps push frame rates higher, but at 4K, the GPU's lower relative standing becomes the limiting factor.

The measured FPS numbers confirm this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 127 FPS average, which is a strong result. At 4K Ultra, that number falls to 42 FPS average. The scaling pattern across resolutions and settings suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck at higher loads, while the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU adequately at lower settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. The GPU's base clock is 2150 MHz, with a boost clock of 2600 MHz and a game clock of 2495 MHz. These clocks are relevant because Flight Simulator's rendering load scales heavily with resolution and settings, and the data shows how the GPU responds.

At 1080p, the GPU has enough bandwidth and compute to deliver playable frame rates across all settings. The jump from Low (127 FPS) to Ultra (71 FPS) at 1080p represents a 44% drop, which is substantial but still leaves the game playable. At 1440p, the same settings range produces 102 FPS to 57 FPS, a 44% drop as well. At 4K, the range narrows: 75 FPS at Low down to 42 FPS at Ultra, a 44% drop. The consistent percentage drop across resolutions indicates that the GPU's performance scaling is predictable, but the absolute numbers at 4K Ultra fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

The GPU's 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs are modest for a 2020-era flight simulator with heavy draw calls and terrain rendering. The 40 ray accelerators are present but not heavily utilized in this title. The FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the data shows that 4K Ultra demands more than this GPU can deliver comfortably. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the game's texture workloads, but the 192-bit bus width limits memory bandwidth compared to wider-bus cards.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data shows a clear pattern: Medium settings provide the best balance between visual quality and frame rate stability across all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the combo delivers 99 FPS average with a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 113 FPS. This is the only settings level at 1080p where the minimum frame rate stays above 80 FPS, indicating smooth performance without significant drops.

At 1440p Medium, the average is 79 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 91 FPS. This is a comfortable range for a flight simulator, where frame rate dips during complex scenery are less jarring than in fast-paced action games. The 68 FPS minimum is still above the 60 FPS threshold, making this a viable option for users with 1440p displays.

At 4K Medium, the average drops to 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 67 FPS. The 50 FPS minimum is below 60, which may cause noticeable stutter during dense urban flyovers. However, the average of 59 FPS is close to the 60 FPS target, and the maximum of 67 FPS shows the system can push higher when the scene is less demanding. For 4K users, Medium is the recommended preset because High and Ultra both fall below 45 FPS average, which is likely too low for a satisfying experience.

Low settings are only recommended for users who prioritize frame rate above all else. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 127 FPS average, which is excellent for competitive or smooth gameplay. At 4K Low, the 75 FPS average is still above 60, making it a viable fallback for 4K users who cannot tolerate Medium's 50 FPS minimum.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Starting at 1920x1080, the data shows a full range of performance across the four settings levels. Low produces 127 FPS average, Medium produces 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 and a maximum of 113, High produces 74 FPS, and Ultra produces 71 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 28 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset adds little visual benefit over High for a significant performance cost at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers scale down predictably. Low produces 102 FPS average, Medium produces 79 FPS with a minimum of 68 and a maximum of 91, High produces 60 FPS, and Ultra produces 57 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 23 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is 3 FPS. The 60 FPS average at High is exactly at the standard target, but the lack of minimum data for High means we cannot assess stability.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low produces 75 FPS average, Medium produces 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 67, High produces 44 FPS, and Ultra produces 42 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 16 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as even Low settings cannot reach 100 FPS, and Ultra dips below 45 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 127 at 1080p to 102 at 1440p to 75 at 4K. This represents a 41% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the drop is from 99 to 79 to 59, a 40% drop. At High settings, the drop is from 74 to 60 to 44, a 41% drop. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 71 to 57 to 42, a 41% drop.

The consistent 40-41% drop across all settings levels indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck when resolution increases. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a smaller drop at higher resolutions because the CPU's workload does not scale as heavily with resolution. Instead, the GPU's rendering workload increases with pixel count, and the RX 6750 XT's 432.0 GB/s bandwidth and 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are insufficient to maintain high frame rates at 4K.

The 1080p to 1440p drop is roughly 20% across all settings, while the 1440p to 4K drop is roughly 26%. This steeper drop at the higher resolution step confirms that the GPU is hitting a memory bandwidth or compute ceiling. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads boosting to 5.30 GHz, has enough single-thread performance to feed the GPU at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to keep up with the CPU's output.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its 65 W TDP is modest for a desktop processor, indicating efficient power delivery.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical because the simulation engine handles physics, weather, and AI traffic calculations on the CPU side. The single-thread performance is particularly important for the main simulation thread. The 3dmark single-thread score of 1049 and the passmark single-thread score of 4063 both indicate strong per-core performance. The cinebench R23 single-core score of 1930 reinforces this picture.

The multi-threaded benchmarks show that the CPU can handle heavy parallel workloads. The cinebench R23 multicore score of 18760 and the passmark multithread score of 34470 are solid results. The 3dmark 16-thread score of 8484 and the max-thread score of 8479 are nearly identical, suggesting that the CPU reaches its performance ceiling with 16 threads and does not benefit from additional threads beyond that point.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, Intel Core 5 221E, AMD Ryzen 9 270, and Intel Core i9-13905H. The Ryzen 7 7700's average benchmark score of 40081 is 0.1% higher than the Ryzen AI 9 365's 40048, 0.2% lower than the Core 5 221E's 40144, 0.4% lower than the Ryzen 9 270's 40246, and 0.6% lower than the Core i9-13905H's 40313. These differences are minimal, indicating that the CPU's performance is well within the expected range for its class.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1080p?

A: Medium settings provide the best balance, with an average FPS of 99, a minimum of 84, and a maximum of 113. This is the only preset at 1080p where the minimum frame rate stays above 80 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: At 4K, the combo achieves 75 FPS on Low, 59 FPS on Medium, 44 FPS on High, and 42 FPS on Ultra. Medium is the only preset that maintains an average near 60 FPS, but the minimum of 50 FPS indicates occasional drops below the target.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 7700 has an average benchmark score of 40081, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, 0.2% lower than the Intel Core 5 221E, 0.4% lower than the AMD Ryzen 9 270, and 0.6% lower than the Intel Core i9-13905H.

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 71 at 1080p to 42 at 4K, representing a 41% decrease. This consistent drop across all settings levels indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The FPS drops consistently by 40-41% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which points to GPU rendering limitations. The CPU's strong single-thread score of 1930 in cinebench R23 suggests it has sufficient headroom.

Q: What is the GPU's VRAM capacity and bandwidth?

A: The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective.