Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060

This combination of an AMD Ryzen 7 9700F processor with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 graphics card produces a measured performance profile that ranks 2344th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the field. The data shows a system that is consistently GPU-limited across most settings, with the CPU's strong multi-threaded capabilities unable to overcome the graphics card's constraints at higher resolutions. The measured frames per second range from a low of 30 FPS at 4K Ultra to a high of 92 FPS at 1080p Low, with the playability envelope largely determined by the interaction between resolution and quality preset.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a 65W TDP. The CPU features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The processor connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes.

In benchmark terms, the 9700F scores 4691 in single-threaded tests (PassMark single thread) and 36470 in multi-threaded tests (PassMark multithread). Its overall average benchmark score is 69996, placing it at the 94th percentile among all CPUs tested. The nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (average score 69875, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i7-14700KF (average score 70163, delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (average score 69515, delta 0.7%), and Intel Core i7-14700K (average score 69355, delta 0.9%). These deltas indicate the 9700F is effectively performance-equivalent to these four processors, with differences under 1% in either direction.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's single-thread performance is particularly relevant because flight simulation workloads often involve complex physics calculations, flight model updates, and scenery processing that can be heavily dependent on single-core performance. The 4691 single-thread score is strong, suggesting the CPU can feed frames quickly. However, the measured FPS data reveals a different story: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 92 FPS, but this drops to 51 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The pattern of FPS declining as settings increase, even at the same resolution, points to the GPU becoming the limiting factor rather than the CPU. The 9700F's 16 threads and high boost clock are more than sufficient for this title, but the system's overall performance ceiling is governed by the graphics card.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best measured performance this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 92 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 74 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 71 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2344th out of 2996 total tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 78th percentile from the bottom, meaning roughly 22% of tested combinations perform worse.

Q: What is the lowest FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The lowest average FPS is 30 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The 4K High preset also produces a low average of 32 FPS, while 4K Ultra additionally shows no min/max FPS values recorded.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU bottleneck this system in this game?

A: The data indicates GPU limitation. At 1080p, dropping from Low to Ultra reduces average FPS from 92 to 51, a 41 FPS difference. If the CPU were the bottleneck, this settings change would have a smaller impact. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 58th percentile supports this interpretation.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CPU and GPU in this combo?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has a launch MSRP of $289. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 has a launch MSRP of 349 USD. These are the only pricing details available in the data.

Q: Are there any settings where the FPS exceeds 60 FPS consistently?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average is 92 FPS. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average is 74 FPS. At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average is 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS, indicating it stays above 60 FPS throughout the measurement.

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

Examining the measured FPS across resolutions reveals a consistent scaling pattern that clearly identifies the GPU as the primary limiter. At Low settings, the system delivers 92 FPS at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. This represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p (92 to 74 FPS) and a 40% drop from 1440p to 4K (74 to 55 FPS). The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 40% (92 to 55 FPS). This pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly increases the rendering load on the graphics card.

At Medium settings, the same pattern emerges: 71 FPS at 1080p, 58 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 18%, and from 1440p to 4K is 28%, with a total reduction of 41% from 1080p to 4K. Notably, the Medium preset records min and max FPS values: at 1080p, the range is 61 to 82 FPS; at 1440p, 49 to 66 FPS; and at 4K, 36 to 49 FPS. These ranges show that even the minimum FPS at 1080p Medium (61 FPS) exceeds the average FPS at 4K Medium (42 FPS), further confirming the resolution-dependent nature of the bottleneck.

High settings show a similar trend: 54 FPS at 1080p, 43 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 20% from 1080p to 1440p and 26% from 1440p to 4K, totaling 41% from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings produce 51 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K, with drops of 20% and 27% respectively, totaling 41% as well. The consistency of these percentage drops across all four settings presets — all hovering around 40-41% total reduction from 1080p to 4K — strongly indicates that the GPU's rendering throughput is the limiting factor. A CPU-bound scenario would show a much smaller FPS reduction at higher resolutions, as the CPU workload would remain roughly constant while the GPU takes longer per frame.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo rank of 2344 out of 2996 total tested combinations places this system in the 78th percentile from the bottom, meaning it outperforms approximately 22% of all tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking reflects the combined capability of the Ryzen 7 9700F and RTX 2060 within this specific game's engine and workload characteristics.

The CPU alone sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 58th percentile among all GPUs. This discrepancy — a 36-percentage-point gap — explains why the combo ranks relatively low despite having a strong processor. The RTX 2060's position in the GPU hierarchy drags down the overall system ranking, as Microsoft Flight Simulator's performance at the settings and resolutions tested is dominated by GPU throughput. The GPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (average score 15283, delta 0%), AMD Radeon 680M (average score 15270, delta 0.1%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (average score 15199, delta 0.6%), and AMD Radeon RX 7600 (average score 15171, delta 0.8%). These deltas show the RTX 2060 is essentially tied with these other GPUs, all within 0.8% of each other in average benchmark score.

Given that the CPU is competitive with processors like the Ryzen 9 7940HX and Core i7-14700KF (both within 0.2% in average score), the fact that the full combo ranks in the bottom 22% of tested systems indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint. If the same CPU were paired with a higher-performing GPU, the combo rank would likely improve substantially. The 2344th rank out of 2996 combos suggests that many tested systems include graphics cards with better performance than the RTX 2060, even if their CPUs are weaker.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is based on the TU106 chip using the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process by TSMC. It features 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, 48 render output units, 30 ray tracing cores, and 240 tensor cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The card's pixel rate is 80.64 GPixel/s, texture rate is 201.6 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 6.451 TFLOPS. It has a TDP of 160W and requires one 8-pin power connector.

In benchmark terms, the RTX 2060 scores 14111 in PassMark G3D and 15290 in average benchmark score, placing it at the 58th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its average score, as noted previously. The GPU's percentile ranking is significantly lower than the CPU's 94th percentile, which is the core reason for the system's overall combo rank.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the RTX 2060's 6 GB of VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are relevant factors. The game's rendering of detailed terrain, aircraft models, and weather effects requires significant texture memory, and the measured FPS at 4K (30-55 FPS depending on settings) suggests the GPU is working near its limits at that resolution. The boost clock of 1680 MHz provides the compute throughput for the pixel and texture rates, but the relatively modest FP32 performance of 6.451 TFLOPS limits the card's ability to handle the game's shader complexity at higher quality presets. The drop from 92 FPS at 1080p Low to 51 FPS at 1080p Ultra — a 45% reduction — illustrates how the GPU's fixed resources are strained by increased quality settings even at the same resolution.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values across settings are as follows: Low produces 92 FPS, Medium produces 71 FPS (with a range of 61 to 82 FPS), High produces 54 FPS, and Ultra produces 51 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with the largest single-step drop occurring between Low and Medium (21 FPS reduction), followed by Medium to High (17 FPS reduction), and High to Ultra (only 3 FPS reduction). This narrowing of the FPS gap between High and Ultra suggests that the GPU is approaching its performance ceiling at this resolution, with diminishing returns from additional quality settings.

At 2560x1440, the measured average FPS values are: Low at 74 FPS, Medium at 58 FPS (range 49 to 66 FPS), High at 43 FPS, and Ultra at 41 FPS. The step changes are 16 FPS from Low to Medium, 15 FPS from Medium to High, and only 2 FPS from High to Ultra. The pattern of diminishing returns between High and Ultra persists at this resolution, with the Ultra preset offering negligible improvement over High in terms of FPS cost. The minimum FPS at Medium (49 FPS) is close to the average FPS at Ultra (41 FPS), indicating that even at Medium settings, the frame rate can dip below what would be considered smooth for many users.

At 3840x2160, the measured average FPS values are: Low at 55 FPS, Medium at 42 FPS (range 36 to 49 FPS), High at 32 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS. The step changes are 13 FPS from Low to Medium, 10 FPS from Medium to High, and 2 FPS from High to Ultra. The 4K results show that the system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any settings preset, and only the Low preset exceeds 50 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 36 FPS and maximum of 49 FPS indicates significant frame time variance at this resolution, which could manifest as stuttering during gameplay. The Ultra preset at 30 FPS is at the threshold of playability for a flight simulator, where precise control inputs benefit from higher frame rates.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends heavily on the user's target resolution and frame rate preferences. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 92 FPS, which provides a very smooth experience suitable for fast-paced flight maneuvers. However, the Medium preset at 71 FPS (with a minimum of 61 FPS) offers a significantly better visual quality while still maintaining a frame rate above 60 FPS throughout the measurement. The High preset at 54 FPS and Ultra at 51 FPS both fall below 60 FPS, making them less ideal for users who prioritize smoothness over visual fidelity. For 1080p, the Medium preset represents the best balance, as it is the highest quality setting that consistently stays above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 74 FPS is the only option that exceeds 60 FPS, but it does so with reduced visual quality. The Medium preset at 58 FPS (with a minimum of 49 FPS) is close to 60 FPS but may experience occasional dips below that threshold. For users who can tolerate frame rates in the 50-60 FPS range, the Medium preset at 1440p offers a good middle ground between visual quality and performance. The High and Ultra presets at 43 and 41 FPS respectively are playable but noticeably less smooth, and the gap between them is minimal (2 FPS), suggesting that Ultra provides little benefit over High at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets achieve 60 FPS. The Low preset at 55 FPS is the highest performing option, followed by Medium at 42 FPS, High at 32 FPS, and Ultra at 30 FPS. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only viable option for near-60 FPS performance, while the Medium preset at 42 FPS may be acceptable for users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate. The High and Ultra presets at 32 and 30 FPS respectively are at the lower boundary of playability and are not recommended for a smooth experience. The data suggests that users with this combo who want the best overall experience should consider playing at 1080p with Medium settings, as this provides the highest quality preset that maintains a minimum FPS above 60 (61 FPS). For those who prefer higher resolutions, 1440p with Low settings offers the best frame rate (74 FPS), while 4K should only be attempted with the Low preset if frame rates above 50 FPS are desired.