Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured data shows a clear trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate across the four available presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 106 FPS, which is the highest measured value in the entire dataset. Medium follows at 82 FPS, High at 62 FPS, and Ultra drops to 59 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 24 FPS (a 22.6% reduction), while the step from Medium to High costs another 20 FPS (a 24.4% reduction). High to Ultra is comparatively gentle, losing only 3 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the pattern persists but with lower ceilings. Low averages 85 FPS, Medium 66 FPS, High 50 FPS, and Ultra 48 FPS. The proportional drop from Low to Medium is again steep (22.4%), and Medium to High loses 24.2%. At 3840x2160, Low manages 63 FPS, Medium 49 FPS, High 37 FPS, and Ultra 35 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only configuration that falls below 36 FPS, which is generally considered the floor for smooth gameplay.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 stands out. It delivers 82 FPS average with a measured minimum of 70 FPS and maximum of 95 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above typical 60 FPS targets while retaining moderate visual quality. The Low preset at 1080p offers the highest headroom at 106 FPS, but the visual sacrifice may not be justified given that Medium only loses 24 FPS. At 1440p, Medium at 66 FPS (minimum 57, maximum 76) is the most balanced option, staying above 60 FPS on average while providing better image clarity than 1080p. At 4K, Low at 63 FPS is the only preset that clears 60 FPS, making it the pragmatic choice for UHD displays. Ultra is consistently the worst performer at every resolution, and the data suggests it should be avoided unless the user prioritizes maximum visual detail over frame rate stability.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this combination?

A: The highest measured average is 106 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. The next best is 85 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 82 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the drop is from 106 FPS to 85 FPS, a reduction of 21 FPS (19.8%). At Medium, it drops from 82 FPS to 66 FPS, a reduction of 16 FPS (19.5%). At High, it drops from 62 FPS to 50 FPS, a reduction of 12 FPS (19.4%). At Ultra, it drops from 59 FPS to 48 FPS, a reduction of 11 FPS (18.6%).

Q: Does the Ultra preset ever outperform the High preset by a meaningful margin?

A: No. At every resolution, Ultra is slower than High. The smallest gap is at 1080p where Ultra averages 59 FPS versus High's 62 FPS (a 4.8% deficit). At 1440p, Ultra averages 48 FPS versus High's 50 FPS (a 4.0% deficit). At 4K, Ultra averages 35 FPS versus High's 37 FPS (a 5.4% deficit).

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in the dataset?

A: The only preset with a recorded minimum is Medium, which shows 70 FPS at 1080p, 57 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K. The other presets do not have minimum values listed in the measured data.

Q: How does the combo rank compare to other tested combinations?

A: This combo ranks 1814th out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 39.4th percentile. This means roughly 60.6% of tested combos perform better in this specific game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The data suggests the GPU becomes the primary limiter at 4K. The frame rate drops significantly from 1080p to 4K at every settings level, with the Low preset falling from 106 FPS to 63 FPS (a 40.6% reduction). This scaling pattern is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, as the CPU workload remains constant while the GPU rendering load increases with resolution.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 106 FPS at 1080p to 85 FPS at 1440p, then to 63 FPS at 4K. This represents a 19.8% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a further 25.9% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K is 40.6%.

At Medium settings, the progression is 82 FPS at 1080p, 66 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 19.5%, and the 1440p-to-4K drop is 25.8%. The cumulative drop is 40.2%. At High settings, the numbers are 62 FPS, 50 FPS, and 37 FPS, with drops of 19.4% and 26.0% respectively, totaling 40.3%. At Ultra settings, the progression is 59 FPS, 48 FPS, and 35 FPS, with drops of 18.6% and 27.1%, totaling 40.7%.

The near-identical percentage drops across all four settings presets (ranging from 40.2% to 40.7% cumulative) indicate that resolution scaling is independent of the graphics preset. This uniformity strongly suggests that the rendering workload scales linearly with pixel count, which is a classic GPU-bound signature. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, the percentage drops would be smaller because the CPU work would dominate at lower resolutions, compressing the FPS differences between resolutions. Instead, the data shows that each resolution step imposes roughly the same proportional cost regardless of whether the game is running at Low or Ultra, pointing to the GPU as the limiting component across all tested configurations.

The 1440p-to-4K transitions consistently cost more (25.8-27.1% reduction) than the 1080p-to-1440p transitions (18.6-19.8% reduction). This is expected because 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p, whereas 1440p has only 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p. The GPU must process proportionally more fragments at each successive resolution, and the data reflects this geometric scaling.

How This Combo Ranks

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 ranks 1814th out of 2996 tested combos. This places the combo in the bottom 39.4% of all tested configurations, indicating that while it is capable of running the game, many other combinations deliver higher frame rates. The rank is a holistic measure that accounts for performance across all tested settings and resolutions, not just a single configuration.

The GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 66th, meaning it performs better than 66% of all GPUs in synthetic benchmarks. However, the combo's in-game rank of 1814/2996 suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly demanding on this hardware. The CPU's percentile ranking is 87th among all CPUs, which is relatively strong. The discrepancy between the CPU's strong percentile (87) and the combo's mediocre in-game rank (39.4th percentile) indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing for this specific title.

The measured FPS data confirms this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 106 FPS, which is respectable but not exceptional for a flight simulator that often has complex scenery and weather rendering. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 35 FPS, which is below the 36 FPS threshold commonly considered minimally playable. The combo's rank reflects this limitation at higher resolutions and settings.

Compared to other combos in the database, this pairing sits in the lower-middle tier for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The rank of 1814 out of 2996 means that 1,182 combos perform worse, but 1,814 perform better. For a game that rewards high frame rates for smooth camera panning and instrument reading, this ranking suggests users may need to compromise on settings or resolution to achieve their desired performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The CPU features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, though the discrete RTX 5050 handles the rendering in this configuration.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU scores 18,760 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,930 in single-core. Its 3DMark scores range from 1,049 in single-thread to 8,484 in 16-thread tests. The Passmark multi-thread score is 34,470, and the single-thread score is 4,063. The CPU's average benchmark score is 40,081, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (0.1% faster), Intel Core 5 221E (0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 270 (0.4% slower), and Intel Core i9-13905H (0.6% slower).

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, including flight dynamics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample parallelism for these workloads. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz ensures strong single-threaded performance, which is critical for the main simulation loop. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 106 FPS, which is likely close to the CPU's maximum frame rate cap for this game. The fact that 1080p Low (106 FPS) is much higher than 4K Low (63 FPS) suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is able to feed frames faster than the GPU can render them, but at 4K the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for the streaming of terrain and scenery data that Microsoft Flight Simulator requires. The 65W TDP indicates efficient power draw, which is notable given the sustained load that flight simulation imposes. The CPU's 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates strong overall performance, and in this combo, it is not the limiting factor for frame rates above 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are: Low 106 FPS, Medium 82 FPS (minimum 70, maximum 95), High 62 FPS, and Ultra 59 FPS. The Medium preset provides the only recorded minimum and maximum values at this resolution, with a 25 FPS spread between the minimum and maximum. The gap between Low and Medium is 24 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 20 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 3 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the measured averages are: Low 85 FPS, Medium 66 FPS (minimum 57, maximum 76), High 50 FPS, and Ultra 48 FPS. The Medium preset again shows the only min/max values, with a 19 FPS spread. The Low-to-Medium gap is 19 FPS, Medium-to-High is 16 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 2 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p (48 FPS) is only slightly faster than the High preset at 4K (37 FPS), indicating that resolution has a larger impact than the Ultra preset setting.

At 3840x2160, the measured averages are: Low 63 FPS, Medium 49 FPS (minimum 42, maximum 56), High 37 FPS, and Ultra 35 FPS. The Medium preset shows a 14 FPS spread between minimum and maximum. The Low-to-Medium gap is 14 FPS, Medium-to-High is 12 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 2 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Low preset falls below 60 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops below 36 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently shows a min/max range of approximately 14-25 FPS, indicating moderate frame time variance. The Low, High, and Ultra presets do not have recorded min/max values in the measured data. The data shows that the High and Ultra presets are nearly identical in performance at all resolutions, with differences of only 2-3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds minimal additional rendering load over High for this game.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB207 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It features 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 320.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 2,317 MHz, with a boost clock of 2,572 MHz, and memory running at 2,500 MHz (20 Gbps effective). The GPU's FP32 performance is 13.17 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 82.30 GPixel/s, with a texture rate of 205.8 GTexel/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GPU scores 17,326 in Passmark G3D and 9,184 in GPU compute. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,502. The GPU's average benchmark score is 21,035, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (0.6% slower), AMD Radeon HD 8970M (1.0% slower), AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (1.6% faster), and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (1.6% slower).

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is responsible for rendering the complex 3D scenery, including terrain, buildings, aircraft, and weather effects. The 8 GB of VRAM is a consideration for this game, which can use significant memory for high-resolution textures. The measured FPS data shows that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the combo achieves 106 FPS on Low settings, which is likely near the GPU's maximum capability for this title. At 4K, even the Low preset drops to 63 FPS, a 40.6% reduction from 1080p, clearly indicating GPU-bound performance.

The 128-bit memory bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest for a modern GPU, and this may contribute to the performance drop at 4K where texture fetch demands increase. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p at most settings, but 4K Ultra may exceed this capacity, potentially causing texture streaming issues. The GPU's 66th percentile ranking among all GPUs reflects its mid-range positioning, and the in-game combo rank of 1814/2996 confirms that it is the bottleneck in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's 130W TDP and PCIe 5.0 x8 interface are appropriate for its performance class, but the data shows that users seeking higher frame rates at 4K will need a more powerful GPU than the RTX 5050.