Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the comboRankInGame for this AMD Ryzen 7 9700F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combination ranks 215th out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the top 5.8% of all systems evaluated for this game.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The 9700F scores 69,996, which is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (69,875) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515). It trails the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70,163) by 0.2% and the Intel Core i7-14700K (69,355) by 0.9%.

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

A: The RTX 4080 sits at the 86th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 54,247. Its closest rival is the RTX 4080 SUPER at 54,209, a 0.1% difference.

Q: What is the best measured average FPS across all resolution and settings combinations?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 211 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 170 at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 164 at 1080p Medium.

Q: Are there any settings combinations where the average FPS drops below 60?

A: No. The lowest recorded average FPS is 70 at 4K Ultra settings. All other tested combinations stay at 73 FPS or higher.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the CPU and GPU?

A: The CPU has a launch MSRP of $289, and the GPU has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the primary rendering engine for Microsoft Flight Simulator, and its specifications directly shape the measured FPS deltas across settings. With 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, the card delivers 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This is critical for a flight sim that streams vast terrain and aircraft geometry; the memory subsystem must keep pace with the scene complexity at high resolutions. The 2205 MHz base clock and 2505 MHz boost clock drive 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, with the card's 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 throughput handling the shader work.

The data shows a clear pattern: at 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor when settings rise. The average FPS at 3840x2160 drops from 125 at Low to 97 at Medium, then to 73 at High, and finally to 70 at Ultra. That is a 44% reduction from Low to Ultra at 4K, reflecting the GPU's workload scaling with more complex lighting, shadows, and cloud rendering. The RTX 4080's 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores are present, though the measured rows do not isolate ray-traced effects; the overall trend indicates the card's raw rasterization and compute capacity dominate.

At 1080p, the GPU is less stressed. The average FPS at 1920x1080 ranges from 211 at Low to 117 at Ultra, a 45% drop. The absolute numbers are high enough that the CPU's role becomes more visible, but the GPU still dictates the ceiling at higher presets. The 16 GB VRAM is generous for this game; flight simulators often load large textures and scenery packs, and having 16 GB avoids potential stutter from VRAM swapping, though the measured min FPS values are only available for Medium settings (e.g., 139 at 1080p, 112 at 1440p, 83 at 4K).

The RTX 4080's 320 W TDP and triple-slot design are physical constraints, but they do not affect the measured performance data. The benchmark results indicate that the GPU's 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average score of 54,247, aligns with its position as a high-end part—just 0.1% behind the RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828, though that delta is negative, meaning the RTX 4080 scores lower). For this game, the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading throughput are the key assets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system's bottleneck shifts as resolution increases. At Low settings, the scaling is steep: 211 FPS at 1080p falls to 170 FPS at 1440p (a 19% drop) and then to 125 FPS at 4K (a 26% drop from 1440p). This indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is doing meaningful work; the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, and the FPS drops by roughly 41% overall. The CPU is not the sole limiter—if it were, the FPS would remain flat across resolutions.

At Medium settings, the pattern continues: 164 FPS at 1080p, 132 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop), and 97 FPS at 4K (a 27% drop from 1440p). The min FPS values for Medium also scale: 139 at 1080p, 112 at 1440p, and 83 at 4K. These min values are 85%, 85%, and 86% of their respective averages, suggesting consistent frame pacing across resolutions.

At High settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 123 FPS to 99 FPS (a 20% reduction), and then to 73 FPS at 4K (a 26% reduction from 1440p). At Ultra, the numbers are 117 FPS at 1080p, 95 FPS at 1440p (a 19% drop), and 70 FPS at 4K (a 26% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops—roughly 19-20% from 1080p to 1440p and 26-27% from 1440p to 4K—indicates a GPU-bound scenario at all settings. The resolution scaling is nearly linear with pixel count, which is the hallmark of a graphics-limited workload.

However, the absolute FPS at 4K is playable across all settings: the lowest is 70 FPS at Ultra, which is above 60. This suggests that the RTX 4080 has enough headroom to handle 4K flight simulation, but the margin narrows at Ultra. The data shows that the limiting component is the GPU at higher resolutions, while at 1080p Low (211 FPS), the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads may begin to impose a ceiling, though the measured values do not show a plateau—the FPS continues to scale with resolution, just not proportionally to pixel count.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 achieves a comboRankInGame of 215 out of 3,714 tested combos. This places it in the top 5.8% of all systems, which is a strong showing for a flight sim that often favors high single-thread performance and substantial GPU memory. The rank reflects the balance between the CPU's 94th percentile standing among all CPUs (average score 69,996) and the GPU's 86th percentile (average score 54,247). The CPU is relatively stronger than the GPU in raw benchmarks, but the game's demands on both are evident.

The nearest CPU rivals—the Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.2% higher score), Core i7-14700KF (0.2% lower), Ryzen 9 7950X (0.7% higher), and Core i7-14700K (0.9% higher)—all have similar average scores, meaning the CPU choice among these would shift the combo rank only marginally. The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 4080 SUPER, is 0.1% higher in score, which could nudge the rank up slightly if paired with the same CPU. The data shows that the combo's rank is driven more by the GPU's position than the CPU's, given that the 4080 is at the 86th percentile and the CPU is at the 94th.

In practical terms, a rank of 215 out of 3,714 means that most tested systems are slower in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The measured FPS values—e.g., 73 FPS at 4K High and 70 FPS at 4K Ultra—support this, as these are playable frame rates that many lower-ranked combos would not achieve. The combo sits in a performance tier where users can expect smooth gameplay at 4K without dropping below 60 FPS, which is a key threshold for flight sims where smooth panning is critical.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the best experience balances FPS stability with visual fidelity. The Ultra preset at 4K yields 70 FPS average, which is playable but offers no margin for demanding scenes (e.g., dense cityscapes or weather effects). The High preset at 4K delivers 73 FPS, only 4% faster than Ultra, suggesting that the Ultra-to-High difference is small in this game. The Medium preset at 4K provides 97 FPS, a 39% improvement over Ultra, with a min FPS of 83—this gives a comfortable buffer.

At 1440p, the High preset hits 99 FPS, and Ultra hits 95 FPS, a negligible 4% difference. Medium at 1440p gives 132 FPS with a min of 112, which is excellent for high-refresh monitors. At 1080p, even Ultra achieves 117 FPS, and High reaches 123 FPS, both well above 60. The data suggests that for 4K users, Medium is the sweet spot: it provides 97 FPS average and 83 FPS minimum, which ensures smooth gameplay without the visual compromises of Low (125 FPS but likely reduced detail). For 1440p, High or Ultra are both viable, with High offering a slight edge in FPS (99 vs 95). For 1080p, any preset works, but Ultra at 117 FPS is the best visual experience without sacrificing playability.

The measured rows show that the jump from Medium to High costs 24 FPS at 4K (97 to 73) and 33 FPS at 1440p (132 to 99), while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS at 4K (73 to 70) and 4 FPS at 1440p (99 to 95). This implies that High is the most efficient preset—it captures most of the visual improvement over Medium while avoiding the marginal gains of Ultra. For users prioritizing frame rate, Medium is the recommendation; for those wanting the best visuals, High is the logical choice, as Ultra adds little.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 211 FPS at Low, 164 FPS at Medium (min 139, max 188), 123 FPS at High, and 117 FPS at Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 94 FPS, or 45% of the Low value. The Medium min FPS of 139 is 85% of the average, indicating stable frame delivery.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS values are 170 at Low, 132 at Medium (min 112, max 152), 99 at High, and 95 at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 75 FPS, or 44%. The Medium min FPS of 112 is 85% of the average, matching the 1080p ratio.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 125 at Low, 97 at Medium (min 83, max 112), 73 at High, and 70 at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 55 FPS, or 44%. The Medium min FPS of 83 is 86% of the average.

The pattern is consistent: each settings tier costs roughly 20-30% of the previous tier's FPS, and each resolution step costs about 20-27%. The Medium preset is the only one with min/max data, and those values show that the system holds a stable frame rate—the min is always above 60 even at 4K. The Ultra preset at 4K produces 70 FPS average, which is the lowest recorded value, but it remains playable. The High preset at 4K (73 FPS) is nearly identical to Ultra, while Medium at 4K (97 FPS) offers a significant improvement with only a moderate visual downgrade.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It has a 65 W TDP and supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, providing 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 32 MB shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core are relevant for a flight sim that loads large world data; the cache hierarchy helps reduce memory latency during terrain streaming.

The CPU's benchmark scores show strong single-thread performance: 4,691 in Passmark single-thread, which is critical for flight simulators that often have a primary simulation thread. The multi-thread score is 36,470, and the CPU ranks at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 69,996. Its nearest rivals—the Ryzen 9 7940HX (69,875), Core i7-14700KF (70,163), Ryzen 9 7950X (69,515), and Core i7-14700K (69,355)—are all within 1% of its score, indicating that the 9700F is competitive with top-tier desktop and mobile processors.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU's role is most apparent at 1080p Low, where the system hits 211 FPS. At such high frame rates, the CPU must feed the GPU quickly, and the 5.50 GHz boost clock helps maintain that throughput. The 8 cores and 16 threads are sufficient for the game's background tasks (e.g., AI traffic, physics), though the game's primary load is likely on fewer threads. The Passmark physics score of 2,122 and integer math score of 120,788 reflect the CPU's capability for game logic.

However, the data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the FPS scales with resolution consistently. If the CPU were limiting, the FPS would plateau at 1080p and 1440p. Instead, the GPU takes over as the limiting factor. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking and its proximity to the Ryzen 9 7950X (0.7% higher) suggest that upgrading to a higher-core CPU would not yield meaningful gains in this game, as the 8-core 9700F already provides sufficient single-thread performance. The memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is adequate for the GPU's needs, though the GPU's own 716.8 GB/s bandwidth is far higher, underscoring that the GPU is the primary driver of frame rates in this pairing.