Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT produces a set of results that clearly illustrate where the bottlenecks lie. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, while the processor’s strength becomes apparent only when the GPU load is reduced. This combination ranks 969th out of 1795 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the field, which is consistent with a mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and settings, with a focus on what the numbers mean for a builder considering this setup.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a steep and predictable drop as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination achieves 118.5 FPS, but moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 99.1 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 70.8 FPS. This scaling pattern—a 16% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a further 29% reduction from 1440p to 4K—indicates that the RX 6700 XT is the primary limiting factor, as the workload scales directly with pixel count. The CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at lower resolutions, but the graphics card’s compute resources become saturated as the resolution climbs.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, the difference between Low (118.5 FPS) and Ultra (70.1 FPS) is 48.4 FPS, which is a substantial 41% performance hit. At 4K, the same settings comparison shows a drop from 70.8 FPS to 37.8 FPS, a 47% reduction. This consistency across resolutions suggests that the GPU is the bottleneck even at 1080p, as the CPU has enough headroom to handle the increased draw calls and physics calculations that Flight Simulator requires. If the processor were the limiting factor, we would expect the gap between Low and Ultra to narrow as resolution increases, but that is not the case here.

The data also shows that the step from Medium to High is relatively modest compared to the jump from Low to Medium. At 1440p, Medium yields 78 FPS while High yields 55.8 FPS—a 22.2 FPS difference. In contrast, the jump from Low to Medium is 21.1 FPS. This non-linear scaling indicates that certain settings, likely those related to terrain detail and shadow quality, have a disproportionate impact on the GPU. For a builder, this means that dialing back from High to Medium at 1440p provides a significant FPS boost without a massive visual penalty, while the Low preset is clearly not optimized for this hardware.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combination consistently exceeds 60 FPS across all settings. At 2560x1440, only Low (99.1 FPS) and Medium (78 FPS) clear that threshold, while Ultra drops to 53.7 FPS. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 70.8 FPS, and High dips to 42.7 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700X has an average benchmark score of 36029, which places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14500HX (35940) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 (35802). It trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H by 0.4% (36165) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H by 0.8% (36328). These are all near-identical scores, indicating that the CPU is not a differentiator in this game.

Q: Is the GPU the main bottleneck at 4K?

A: Yes. The FPS drops from 70.8 at Low to 37.8 at Ultra at 3840x2160, a 47% reduction. This large swing, combined with the fact that the CPU’s synthetic scores are competitive with rivals, points to the RX 6700 XT being the limiting component at this resolution.

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

A: The RX 6700 XT has a percentile rank of 77, meaning it outperforms 77% of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 33721, which is 0.7% ahead of the RX 6800 (33493) and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (33294), but 1% behind both the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (34050) and RX 480 (34059).

Q: Does the CPU’s boost clock help in this game?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700X has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz and a base clock of 3.80 GHz. While the high boost clock contributes to its strong single-thread performance (1280 in 3dmark_single_thread), the FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor across all settings, so the CPU clock speed is not the primary constraint.

Q: How does the combo rank overall?

A: This combination ranks 969th out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 54th percentile of all tested systems, which is a below-average position for a game that heavily favors high-end GPUs.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured FPS patterns. The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is sufficient for the game’s texture streaming at 1080p and 1440p, but the data suggests that at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the combination of memory bandwidth and compute capacity becomes the limiting factor. The GPU’s boost clock of 2581 MHz and game clock of 2424 MHz are relatively high for the RX 6000 series, yet the card’s FP32 performance of 13.21 TFLOPS is modest compared to what Flight Simulator demands at high resolutions.

The GPU’s benchmark scores show a mixed picture. Its 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 score of 2435 is a strong result, but its passmark_g3d score of 19786 and passmark_directx_12 score of 77 indicate that the card is not optimized for all workloads. The percentile rank of 77 places it in the upper quartile of all GPUs, but its nearest rivals in the database—the RX 6800, HD 7950, RX 480, and RTX A5000—are all within a 1.3% performance band, suggesting that the card is not a standout in its class. In practice, the FPS data shows that the GPU delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but it struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 4K on anything above Low settings.

The VRAM capacity of 12 GB is worth noting for Flight Simulator specifically. The game is known for loading large textures, and the 4K Ultra results (37.8 FPS) suggest that the GPU is running out of headroom, whether due to memory bandwidth or raw compute. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 48.4 FPS, which is a clear indication that the GPU’s processing power, not its memory, is the primary constraint. For a builder, this means that upgrading the GPU would yield the largest FPS gains, as the CPU has demonstrated it can handle the game’s simulation workload.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers 118.5 FPS on Low, 93.3 FPS on Medium, 69.1 FPS on High, and 70.1 FPS on Ultra. The interesting anomaly here is that High and Ultra produce nearly identical results (69.1 vs 70.1 FPS), which suggests that the Ultra preset may not be adding meaningful GPU workload compared to High at this resolution, or that the CPU is beginning to become a secondary factor. At 2560x1440, the results are 99.1 FPS (Low), 78 FPS (Medium), 55.8 FPS (High), and 53.7 FPS (Ultra). The drop from Medium to High is 22.2 FPS, which is the largest single-settings gap in the entire dataset, indicating that High settings introduce a significant computational burden.

At 3840x2160, the numbers fall to 70.8 FPS (Low), 57.6 FPS (Medium), 42.7 FPS (High), and 37.8 FPS (Ultra). The scaling from 1080p to 4K is consistent across settings: Low drops by 47.7 FPS, Medium by 35.7 FPS, High by 26.4 FPS, and Ultra by 32.3 FPS. This shows that the absolute FPS loss is larger at lower settings, but the percentage loss is similar, which is expected for a GPU-bound workload. The key takeaway is that for a smooth 60 FPS experience, the user must stay at 1080p with any settings or 1440p with Low or Medium. At 4K, only Low settings achieve a playable 70.8 FPS, and even that is marginal for a flight simulator where smoothness is critical.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 969 out of 1795 places it in the 54th percentile of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a below-median result, which is surprising given the CPU’s strong performance in synthetic benchmarks. The Ryzen 7 9700X has a percentile rank of 89 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36029, but this does not translate into a high game rank because the GPU is the limiting factor. The data indicates that the CPU is capable of much higher FPS if paired with a more powerful GPU, but as configured, the RX 6700 XT holds the system back.

Comparing to other combos, the rank suggests that many systems with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs outperform this setup in Flight Simulator. The game’s engine is known to be GPU-intensive, and the measured FPS confirms that the graphics card is the bottleneck. For a builder, this means that the money spent on the Ryzen 7 9700X is not being fully utilized in this specific game. The CPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks—the Intel Core i5-14500HX, Core Ultra 9 185H, Ryzen 7 PRO 5845, and Core Ultra 5 225H—would likely produce similar FPS when paired with the same GPU, as the game’s performance is not CPU-limited at these settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is a powerful processor on paper, with 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.50 GHz, combined with a 65 W TDP, make it an efficient choice. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 31588 in cinebench_r23_multicore and 4459 in cinebench_r23_singlecore, which are strong results. Its passmark_single_thread score of 4654 and geekbench_singlecore score of 3353 indicate excellent single-thread performance, which is important for a flight simulator that relies heavily on simulation logic.

However, the measured FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. The fact that FPS scales almost linearly with resolution—from 118.5 FPS at 1080p Low to 70.8 FPS at 4K Low—proves that the GPU is saturated long before the CPU reaches its limits. The CPU’s 32 MB of L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth are more than sufficient for the game’s data streaming needs. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 9824 and 3dmark_single_thread score of 1280 further confirm that the processor has ample headroom.

The data suggests that if the GPU were upgraded, the Ryzen 7 9700X would allow for significantly higher FPS, particularly at 1080p and 1440p. The CPU’s percentile rank of 89 among all CPUs means it is in the top 11% of processors, but in this game, that advantage is masked by the GPU. For a builder, this is a crucial insight: the CPU is a long-term investment that will not hold back future GPU upgrades, but in its current configuration, it is underutilized. The 8-core, 16-thread design is well-suited for the game’s multi-threaded simulation aspects, but those threads are not being taxed at the settings tested.