Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the measured average frame rate for this combo at 1920x1080 on Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the combo achieves an average of 97.6 FPS. This is the lowest result among the four settings tested at that resolution, but it remains comfortably above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in overall benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 has an average benchmark score of 40468, placing it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40262). It trails the Intel Core i9-13905H by 0.6%, as that chip scores 40712.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 sits in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 41687 places it 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (41441) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (41610).

Q: Which resolution and settings combination yields the highest average FPS in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 175.9, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At the same resolution, Medium settings produce 136.9 FPS, and High settings produce 102.1 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank overall in this game?

A: The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 ranks 361st out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 20% of all tested configurations.

Q: What are the CPU's core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz, and it can boost up to 5.30 GHz, built on the Zen 4 architecture with a 65 W TDP.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 provides the computational foundation for this flight simulator setup. With 8 physical cores and 16 threads, the processor handles the simulation's heavy single-threaded tasks as well as background workloads. The base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz indicate a wide operating range, allowing the CPU to scale performance dynamically depending on the load.

Benchmark data shows the 7700's strengths. In Cinebench R23, it scores 29302 in multicore and 4136 in singlecore tests. The 3DMark results reveal scaling from 2043 at 2 threads to 8479 at max threads, demonstrating that the processor efficiently utilizes additional threads. The 8-thread score of 6933 is particularly relevant, as many modern games and simulation engines leverage 8 threads effectively.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 91 among all tested CPUs confirms its position as a high-end processor. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (0.1% behind) and Intel Core i9-13905H (0.6% ahead), showing that the 7700 is competitive with mobile flagship chips despite being a desktop part. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample space for flight simulator terrain data, and DDR5 memory support with dual-channel 83.2 GB/s bandwidth ensures the CPU is not starved for data.

In this game, the CPU's role becomes more pronounced at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low settings (175.9 FPS) and Ultra settings (97.6 FPS) shows that the CPU can push high frame rates when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The 16 threads allow the simulation to process physics, weather, and AI traffic concurrently, which is critical for a flight simulator's real-time nature.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with 6144 shading units and 192 tensor cores. Its 12 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for streaming high-resolution textures in a flight simulator that renders vast landscapes. The base clock of 2325 MHz and boost clock of 2512 MHz provide the raw compute throughput needed for complex scenes.

The GPU's benchmark results show strong performance across different APIs. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 5077, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores reach 185269 and 179413 respectively. The Passmark G3D score of 29137 places the GPU in the 83rd percentile of all graphics cards. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, is only 0.6% behind in average score, indicating that the RTX 5070 performs at a level comparable to a previous-generation flagship.

The 48 ray tracing cores support hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which is increasingly relevant in modern flight simulators for realistic lighting and reflections. The 80 ROPs and 192 TMUs handle pixel and texture processing efficiently, while the 30.87 TFLOPS FP32 performance provides substantial compute capability for physics simulations and post-processing effects.

At 4K resolution, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck. The measured data shows 63.9 FPS at High settings and 56.3 FPS at Ultra settings in 3840x2160. The GPU's 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for the tested presets, but the bandwidth and compute limits become apparent at higher resolutions. At 1440p and 1080p, the GPU has more headroom, allowing the CPU to push frame rates higher.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 ranks 361st out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This puts the pairing in the top 20.1% of all configurations tested, which is a strong result given the breadth of hardware combinations evaluated.

This ranking reflects the balance between the CPU and GPU. The 7700's 91st percentile CPU ranking and the RTX 5070's 83rd percentile GPU ranking combine to produce a system that handles the simulator's demands well. The CPU's strong single-thread performance (4136 in Cinebench R23 singlecore) is particularly valuable for a simulator that relies on robust single-threaded performance for flight model calculations.

The rank of 361 out of 1795 suggests that while this combo is not at the absolute top tier, it outperforms the vast majority of tested systems. The data indicates that the pairing is well-matched, with neither component drastically bottlenecking the other. The measured FPS results across all resolutions and settings support this assessment, as the system maintains playable frame rates even at 4K Ultra (56.3 FPS).

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all settings provide playable performance, with even Ultra settings achieving 97.6 FPS. For users prioritizing smoothness, High settings at 1080p deliver 102.1 FPS, which is a reasonable balance between visual quality and performance. Medium settings at 136.9 FPS offer a significant frame rate increase with modest visual compromise.

At 2560x1440, the data shows that Ultra settings produce 80.3 FPS, which remains smooth for most users. High settings at 81.1 FPS are nearly identical in performance, suggesting that the visual differences between High and Ultra at this resolution are not costly. Medium settings at 112.4 FPS provide a substantial margin for demanding scenes. Low settings at 140.9 FPS offer the highest frame rates but sacrifice visual fidelity.

For 4K resolution, the recommendations change. Ultra settings at 56.3 FPS are playable but approach the edge of smoothness. High settings at 63.9 FPS provide a more comfortable experience. Medium settings at 83.1 FPS are the sweet spot for 4K, offering solid performance while maintaining reasonable visual quality. Low settings at 104.3 FPS are available for users who prioritize frame rates above all else.

The best overall experience per the measured rows is Medium settings at 2560x1440, yielding 112.4 FPS. This combination provides high frame rates while maintaining sufficient visual detail for a flight simulator. For users with 4K displays, Medium settings at 83.1 FPS offer the best balance of performance and visual quality.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates show a clear progression. Low settings achieve 175.9 FPS, Medium settings reach 136.9 FPS, High settings produce 102.1 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 97.6 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 39 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 34.8 FPS. The smallest drop occurs between High and Ultra at 4.5 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease across all settings. Low settings achieve 140.9 FPS, Medium settings reach 112.4 FPS, High settings produce 81.1 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 80.3 FPS. The performance drop from 1080p to 1440p is most pronounced at High settings, with an 21 FPS reduction. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is minimal at 0.8 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little performance cost at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates drop further. Low settings achieve 104.3 FPS, Medium settings reach 83.1 FPS, High settings produce 63.9 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 56.3 FPS. The transition from 1440p to 4K causes the largest relative drop at High settings, falling from 81.1 FPS to 63.9 FPS, a reduction of 17.2 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is 7.6 FPS, which is more significant than at lower resolutions.

The data reveals that the scaling from Low to Ultra is not linear. At 1080p, Ultra is 44.5% slower than Low. At 1440p, Ultra is 43.0% slower than Low. At 4K, Ultra is 46.0% slower than Low. This consistent pattern indicates that the GPU handles the additional visual workload proportionally across resolutions, with the CPU providing sufficient support at all tested settings.