Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combo ranks 1902nd out of 2996 tested configurations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower third of the database, a position that reflects the GPU’s mid-range standing more than the CPU’s strong class-leading result. The pairing is not a top-tier performer, but the data indicates it handles the sim at playable levels, provided expectations are calibrated to the settings and resolution table.

The 9700F is a clear outlier in this pairing’s performance profile. Its PassMark average score of 69,996 places it in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the RX 6650 XT sits in the 65th percentile among all GPUs. That gap is the central story: the processor is working far below its ceiling in this sim, and the graphics card is the limiting factor in almost every measured scenario. The combo rank, which is dragged down by the GPU’s relative weakness, confirms this imbalance.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s 1902nd place out of 2996 tested pairings is a below-median result, but it is not catastrophic. Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title, and this configuration lands in the bottom half of the database. The rank is heavily influenced by the RX 6650 XT’s 65th percentile standing, which is the weaker link in this duo. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, Intel Core i7-14700KF, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, and Intel Core i7-14700K. The 9700F’s average score of 69,996 is within 0.2% of the Ryzen 9 7940HX and within 0.7% of the Ryzen 9 7950X, meaning the processor is trading blows with flagship-class silicon from a generation prior. That level of CPU performance is not the reason this combo ranks where it does.

The GPU’s nearest rivals tell a different story. The RX 6650 XT’s average benchmark score of 19,765 is within 0.6% of the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and within 0.8% of the AMD FirePro W7000. These are workstation and datacenter parts, not gaming-focused contemporaries, which underscores the GPU’s mid-range positioning. In a flight sim that scales heavily with both CPU and GPU, the combo rank is a direct reflection of this hardware mismatch. The data shows that at 1080p, the combo manages 105 FPS on Low, but that drops to 58 FPS on Ultra. Those numbers are respectable for a mid-range card, but they do not push the combo into the upper echelons of the database.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The card’s base clock is 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. These clocks are the engine behind the measured frame rates, and they are sufficient for 1080p play but struggle at higher resolutions. The GPU has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, along with 32 ray accelerators. Its FP32 performance is rated at 10.79 TFLOPS, a figure that places it firmly in the entry-level-to-mid-range segment.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is a critical constraint. The sim is known for large texture loads, especially at higher settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 35 FPS, and at 4K High, it hits 36 FPS. These are marginal numbers, and the min FPS data for Ultra settings is not recorded, suggesting the frame pacing is uneven. The GPU’s 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs is consistent with these results. The card’s PassMark G3D score of 17,166 and DirectX 12 score of 62 further indicate that it is not engineered for the highest fidelity presets in this sim. The 4K Medium preset is the only 4K setting with recorded min and max FPS data, showing 41 and 56 FPS respectively, which points to the GPU being the bottleneck in those scenarios.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a Zen 5 part from the Granite Ridge codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU’s TDP is 65 watts, a modest figure for the performance it delivers. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a 32 MB shared L3 cache. The processor supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, offering 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory and connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

The 9700F’s benchmark results are exceptional. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4,691, and its multithread score is 36,470. The integer math score is 120,788, and floating-point math is 77,955. These figures place the CPU in the 94th percentile of all processors. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the complex flight models, weather systems, and AI traffic. The data suggests the 9700F is more than capable of feeding the GPU at 1080p, where the combo achieves 105 FPS on Low. The bottleneck is not the CPU, as evidenced by the fact that dropping from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra only reduces FPS from 105 to 58, a 47 FPS drop that is largely attributable to the GPU’s load. The CPU’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-14700KF, trails by only 0.2%, and the Ryzen 9 7950X is 0.7% ahead, showing that this 9700F is punching well above its mid-range price point.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F or the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT the limiting factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU sits in the 94th percentile of all processors, while the GPU is in the 65th percentile. The frame rates scale with resolution and settings in a way that indicates GPU-bound performance, especially at 4K where the 8 GB VRAM and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for Ultra presets.

Q: What average frame rate can this combo achieve at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 81 FPS average at 1920x1080 on Medium, with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS. This is the sweet spot for smooth gameplay without the performance hit of Ultra.

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

A: The 9700F’s average benchmark score of 69,996 is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. It is slightly ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700KF by 0.2% and ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700K by 0.9%.

Q: What is the maximum average FPS recorded for this combo at 4K?

A: The highest 4K average is 62 FPS on Low settings at 3840x2160. On Ultra, it drops to 35 FPS, and on High, it is 36 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K records 48 FPS with a minimum of 41 and a maximum of 56.

Q: Does the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM cause issues in this game?

A: The data suggests it does at higher settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo only manages 35 FPS, and at 4K High, it is 36 FPS. The lack of min FPS data for Ultra indicates potential frame drops. At 1080p, the VRAM is less of a constraint, with 105 FPS on Low and 61 FPS on High.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1902nd out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom third, largely due to the GPU’s relatively weak 65th percentile standing compared to the CPU’s 94th percentile.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data shows a clear pattern of GPU scaling as resolution increases. At 1080p, the combo delivers 105 FPS on Low, 81 FPS on Medium, 61 FPS on High, and 58 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 1440p, those numbers drop to 84 FPS on Low, 66 FPS on Medium, 49 FPS on High, and 47 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, the performance falls off a cliff: 62 FPS on Low, 48 FPS on Medium, 36 FPS on High, and 35 FPS on Ultra. The delta from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 43 FPS, a 41% reduction. From 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra, the drop is 23 FPS, a 40% reduction.

This scaling behavior is indicative of a GPU-bound system. The CPU’s performance does not change with resolution, so the consistent FPS drops across all settings point to the RX 6650 XT being the limiting component. The 4K Medium preset is the only 4K setting with recorded min and max FPS data, showing 41 and 56 FPS respectively, which suggests the card can hold playable frame rates at 4K only on lower presets. At 1440p, the card is more comfortable, with the Medium preset hitting 66 FPS average. The 1080p results are the most robust, with even Ultra settings maintaining 58 FPS, which is above the 30 FPS threshold for playability in a sim like this.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience, the data points to 1080p Medium as the optimal balance. The measured 81 FPS average at this preset is smooth for a flight sim, and the recorded minimum of 69 FPS ensures that frame drops are unlikely to cause stutter during complex scenery loads. Cranking to 1080p Ultra yields only 58 FPS, a 23 FPS drop from Medium, which is not worth the visual gain given the sim’s already-heavy CPU load. At 1440p, the Medium preset delivers 66 FPS, which is playable but not as fluid as 1080p Medium. The High preset at 1440p drops to 49 FPS, which is borderline for a sim that requires precise control inputs.

At 4K, the data suggests avoiding anything above Medium. The 4K Medium preset records 48 FPS average, with a minimum of 41 FPS, which is acceptable for a non-competitive sim, but the High and Ultra presets at 36 and 35 FPS respectively are too close to the edge. The Low preset at 4K hits 62 FPS, but the visual compromise is severe for a game that relies on scenery detail. For users prioritizing smoothness, 1080p Medium is the clear choice. For those with a 1440p monitor, Medium is the highest preset that keeps frame rates above 60 FPS. The GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are the constraints, and the data shows no benefit to pushing beyond Medium at any resolution above 1080p.