Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 brings 8 cores and 16 threads from the Zen 4 Raphael architecture, running on AMD Socket AM5. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz give it strong single-threaded headroom, which matters for Microsoft Flight Simulator's simulation logic. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed terrain and aircraft data close to the cores, while the 83.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth feeds the CPU's demand for streaming world data.

Benchmark results place this chip in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40468. Its nearest rivals show how tight the competition is at this tier: the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 scores 40262 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Core i9-13905H scores 40712 (0.6% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T scores 39995 (1.2% behind). The 7700 sits squarely in this pack, meaning its compute throughput is competitive with high-end mobile and desktop parts, though not decisively ahead of any.

For a flight simulator, the CPU's job is twofold: it must maintain the physics and flight model at high tick rates, and it must feed draw calls to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 216.5 FPS, which is the highest number in the entire dataset. This indicates that even at the lowest settings, the CPU is not the primary limiter — the GPU is still able to push well beyond 200 frames. However, the gap between Low and Ultra settings at any resolution shows how much the CPU's workload scales with visual complexity. At 1080p, dropping from Low to Ultra costs 85.4 FPS (from 216.5 to 131.1), suggesting that the CPU's single-thread performance and cache hierarchy are being exercised heavily by the simulator's rendering pipeline.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD102 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 16,384 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and 176 ROPs, along with 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores. The GPU's base clock is 2235 MHz with a boost clock of 2520 MHz, and the memory runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus delivers 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth — a figure that proves critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator's massive, high-resolution texture streaming.

The RTX 4090 sits in the 91st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66473. Its nearest rivals are all professional or workstation cards: the NVIDIA Tesla T4 scores 66733 (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla P40 scores 66127 (0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 67097 (0.9% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 67320 (1.3% behind). This context shows that the 4090's raw compute is comparable to high-end data-center GPUs, but its real strength for gaming lies in the 24 GB VRAM capacity, which prevents texture thrashing at 4K Ultra.

The measured FPS data confirms the GPU's dominance. At 4K Ultra, the combo still averages 74.9 FPS — playable for a flight sim, though not at the 100+ FPS seen at lower settings. The 1.01 TB/s memory bandwidth ensures that the GPU can feed its 16,384 shading units without stalling, even when rendering dense cityscapes or detailed aircraft cockpits. The RTX 4090's 82.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute also handles the simulator's lighting and shadow calculations without bottlenecking the CPU.

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

Looking at the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset at 1440p offers the best balance between visual fidelity and smoothness. At 2560x1440 Medium, the combo averages 147.8 FPS, which is 40.8 FPS higher than High at the same resolution (109.1 FPS) and 40.8 FPS higher than Ultra (107.0 FPS). The jump from Medium to High is marginal in visual quality but costs 38.7 FPS, making Medium the sweet spot for high-refresh-rate monitors.

At 1080p, Medium delivers 184.1 FPS, which is 47.2 FPS higher than High (137.9 FPS) and 53 FPS higher than Ultra (131.1 FPS). This is ideal for 144Hz or 165Hz displays, as the extra headroom above 144 FPS prevents drops below the refresh rate during dense scenery transitions. For 4K displays, Medium at 105.5 FPS is the only preset that breaks the 100 FPS barrier, while High (80.3 FPS) and Ultra (74.9 FPS) remain comfortably playable but require VRR to feel smooth.

The data suggests that Ultra is not worth the performance cost. At every resolution, Ultra is within a few FPS of High (131.1 vs 137.9 at 1080p, 107.0 vs 109.1 at 1440p, 74.9 vs 80.3 at 4K), meaning the visual uplift from High to Ultra is minimal relative to the frame loss. The recommendation is to start at Medium, then selectively raise individual settings if the frame rate allows it — the measured rows show Medium is the most efficient preset across all three resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This CPU-GPU combination ranks 25th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 1.4% of all systems tested. This is a strong result, but not the absolute top — there are 24 configurations that outperform it, likely featuring higher-end CPUs or the same GPU paired with more cache-rich processors. The rank reflects the balance between the Ryzen 7 7700's 91st-percentile CPU score and the RTX 4090's 91st-percentile GPU score, which combine to deliver consistently high FPS across all settings.

The ranking also indicates that the combo is not held back by a glaring bottleneck. In a simulation-heavy title like Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's single-thread performance and the GPU's memory bandwidth both contribute to the final rank. The 7700's 5.30 GHz boost clock helps with the simulator's main-thread workload, while the 4090's 1.01 TB/s bandwidth handles the asset streaming. The 25th rank out of 1,795 suggests that only systems with more powerful CPUs (e.g., those with higher single-thread scores) or more exotic GPU configurations push ahead. For most users, this combo sits at the upper echelon of what is realistically purchasable.

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

The measured FPS data shows how the combo scales across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 216.5 at 1080p to 185.2 at 1440p (a 31.3 FPS loss) and then to 137.6 at 4K (a 47.6 FPS loss from 1440p). At Ultra settings, the drop is from 131.1 at 1080p to 107.0 at 1440p (24.1 FPS loss) and then to 74.9 at 4K (32.1 FPS loss from 1440p). The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 36% at Low (from 216.5 to 137.6) and 43% at Ultra (from 131.1 to 74.9).

This pattern reveals that the GPU is the primary scaling factor as resolution increases. The CPU's workload is largely resolution-independent — it still has to process the same simulation physics and draw calls regardless of whether the output is 1080p or 4K. The fact that FPS drops by a larger absolute amount at Low settings (78.9 FPS from 1080p to 4K) compared to Ultra (56.2 FPS) suggests that at Low, the GPU is more easily saturated by pixel throughput, while at Ultra, the CPU becomes a more significant limiter even at lower resolutions. At 1080p Ultra, the 131.1 FPS figure is close to the 1440p Ultra result of 107.0 FPS — a 24.1 FPS difference — which indicates that the CPU's simulation thread is starting to cap performance at higher settings, even when the GPU has plenty of headroom.

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

The complete measured FPS dataset for this combo is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 216.5 FPS
• Medium: 184.1 FPS
• High: 137.9 FPS
• Ultra: 131.1 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 185.2 FPS
• Medium: 147.8 FPS
• High: 109.1 FPS
• Ultra: 107.0 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 137.6 FPS
• Medium: 105.5 FPS
• High: 80.3 FPS
• Ultra: 74.9 FPS

At 1080p, the gap between Low and Medium is 32.4 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 46.2 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 6.8 FPS. This shows diminishing returns at the top end — High and Ultra are nearly identical in cost, with Ultra offering minimal visual gains for a 6.8 FPS sacrifice. At 1440p, the pattern is similar: Low to Medium costs 37.4 FPS, Medium to High costs 38.7 FPS, and High to Ultra costs just 2.1 FPS. The 1440p High and Ultra results (109.1 and 107.0) are nearly the same, suggesting a CPU bottleneck at these settings.

At 4K, every preset step costs a significant number of frames: Low to Medium is 32.1 FPS, Medium to High is 25.2 FPS, and High to Ultra is 5.4 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 74.9 FPS is the lowest in the dataset, but still above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth flight simulation. The 4K Low result of 137.6 FPS shows that even at the highest resolution, the GPU's 24 GB VRAM and 1.01 TB/s bandwidth keep frame rates well above playable levels, with no signs of memory pressure. The data overall shows a system that can handle 4K Ultra at 75 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 107 FPS, and 1080p Ultra at 131 FPS — each of which is a strong result for this demanding simulator.