Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs an 8-core, 16-thread AMD Ryzen 7 7700 with a 6 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, creating a combination that ranks 1611th out of 1795 tested combos in this title. The data shows a system positioned for playable but not lavish performance, with the measured frames per second varying dramatically based on resolution and preset.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 brings eight physical cores and sixteen threads to the flight simulator, running at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosting up to 5.30 GHz. This Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, sits on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The processor carries 32 MB of shared L3 cache alongside 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 64 KB of L1 cache per core.

Benchmark results place this CPU in the 91st percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 40468. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at a 0.1% higher score, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 at 0.5% higher, and the Intel Core i9-13905H at 0.6% lower. In single-threaded workloads, the chip scores 1049 in 3dmark single thread and 4136 in Cinebench R23 single core, while multi-threaded scores reach 8484 in 3dmark 16 threads and 29302 in Cinebench R23 multicore. These figures suggest strong computational headroom for the simulation's physics and AI workloads, though the measured FPS in this game indicates that other components constrain the final output.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with a TU116 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC, containing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, paired with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units produce 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s.

This graphics card sits in the 55th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 0.2% lower, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics at 0.2% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT at 0.7% higher. The 6 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator, where high-resolution textures and detailed scenery place significant demands on memory. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though it lacks dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which matters little for this simulation's rendering path.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

When the Ryzen 7 7700 and GTX 1660 SUPER are paired together, the combination ranks 1611th out of 1795 total tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom tier of configurations, indicating that the GPU is the dominant limiting factor. The CPU's strong synthetic performance — sitting in the 91st percentile — contrasts sharply with the GPU's mid-pack 55th percentile standing, and the measured game results reflect this imbalance.

The rank of 1611 out of 1795 means roughly 90% of tested combinations deliver higher average frame rates in this title. This does not necessarily indicate an unplayable experience, as the data shows acceptable performance at lower settings, but it does signal that users seeking high-refresh-rate or high-fidelity flight simulation would need to look at more powerful GPU pairings. The combination's position in the rankings is consistent with the GTX 1660 SUPER's age and memory capacity relative to modern flight simulators.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates span from 74.3 FPS on Low settings to 42.0 FPS on Ultra. Medium settings produce 58.0 FPS, while High settings yield 43.1 FPS. This resolution provides the widest range of playable options, with Low and Medium both exceeding the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider smooth.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 60.8 FPS on Low, 48.0 FPS on Medium, 34.4 FPS on High, and 33.6 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium narrows to 12.8 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra shrinks to just 0.8 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end. At 3840x2160, the results fall further: Low averages 42.5 FPS, Medium 35.7 FPS, High 26.7 FPS, and Ultra 24.1 FPS. Only the Low preset remains above 30 FPS at 4K, and even that sits below the 60 FPS target.

The spread between settings grows with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 32.3 FPS; at 1440p it is 27.2 FPS; at 4K it is 18.4 FPS. This compression at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly saturated, reducing the relative impact of graphical preset changes.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear pattern of GPU limitation. At Low settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (74.3 FPS) to 2560x1440 (60.8 FPS) represents an 18.2% drop, while moving to 3840x2160 (42.5 FPS) produces a 42.8% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where pixel throughput becomes the bottleneck.

At High settings, the drop is steeper proportionally: from 43.1 FPS at 1080p to 34.4 FPS at 1440p (a 20.2% reduction) and then to 26.7 FPS at 4K (a 38.1% reduction from 1080p). Ultra settings show similar behavior, falling from 42.0 FPS at 1080p to 33.6 FPS at 1440p and 24.1 FPS at 4K. The consistent pattern across settings — with 4K averaging roughly 55-60% of the 1080p frame rate — indicates that the GPU's shading and memory subsystems are the primary constraint.

The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal. With 16 threads and high single-thread performance (4136 in Cinebench R23 single core), the Ryzen 7 7700 has ample headroom to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions. The data shows that resolution changes produce near-linear pixel-count scaling in frame rate, which is the signature of a GPU-limited configuration rather than a CPU-limited one.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS values, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, Medium settings deliver 58.0 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target and represents a substantial improvement over High's 43.1 FPS. The jump from Medium to High costs 14.9 FPS, while the jump from Low to Medium costs 16.3 FPS, so Medium offers the best balance of visual quality and frame rate at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 60.8 FPS, which is the only preset at this resolution to cross the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 48.0 FPS, which remains playable but below the smoothness target. Users who prioritize frame rate should stick with Low at 1440p, while those who accept a lower frame rate can use Medium for improved visuals.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low settings average 42.5 FPS, Medium 35.7 FPS, High 26.7 FPS, and Ultra 24.1 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that remains above 30 FPS, making it the recommended choice for 4K play. The difference between Low and Medium at 4K is 6.8 FPS, which may not justify the visual upgrade for many users.

The Ultra preset provides no measurable benefit over High at any resolution. At 1080p, Ultra is 1.1 FPS slower than High; at 1440p, it is 0.8 FPS slower; at 4K, it is 2.6 FPS slower. This suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and compute capacity are insufficient to leverage the extra detail levels in Ultra, making it a poor choice for this combination. The data supports prioritizing Medium at 1080p, Low at 1440p, and Low at 4K for the best experience across the measured rows.