Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is notoriously demanding, and the data for the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT shows a combination that is clearly playable but requires a thoughtful approach to settings. The benchmark results indicate a system where the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU's strong single-thread performance keeps frame rates respectable at 1080p. This analysis breaks down the measured performance to help you understand exactly what this pairing delivers.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and tells a clear story about which component is doing the heavy lifting. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 122.7 at 1920x1080 to 96.4 at 2560x1440, then drops sharply to 68.1 at 3840x2160. This represents a 44.5% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K, a scaling pattern that points directly at the GPU struggling with the pixel count. The RX 6700 XT's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth are being taxed, and the data shows that the graphics card is the limiting factor as resolution climbs.

The picture changes when you look at the High and Ultra presets. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 70.1 at 1080p to 53.5 at 1440p, and finally to 40.3 at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is 24.7%, which is less severe than the 31.4% drop seen at Low settings between those same resolutions. This suggests that at higher quality presets, the CPU's role becomes more prominent, but the GPU is still the ceiling. At Ultra, the spread is tighter: 67.3 at 1080p, 53.7 at 1440p, and 38.2 at 4K. The 1080p-to-4K drop of 43.2% at Ultra is consistent with the Low preset, reinforcing that the GPU is the dominant constraint across the board.

What this scaling means practically is that the Ryzen 9 7900X has headroom to spare. The CPU, with its 12 cores and 24 threads and boost clock of 5.60 GHz, is not the bottleneck in any of these measured rows. The 4K results, hovering between 38.2 and 68.1 FPS, are entirely dependent on the GPU's ability to fill pixels. If you are targeting 4K, the data shows you must accept lower presets to stay fluid, while 1080p gives the GPU enough breathing room to allow higher settings without the CPU holding things back.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing sits at rank 994 out of 1795 combos. That places it in the middle of the pack, which makes sense given the hardware mix. The CPU is a high-end part, ranking in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, but the GPU is more mid-range, sitting in the 77th percentile against all GPUs. The combo rank reflects this imbalance: the processor is overqualified for the graphics card's capabilities in this specific title.

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals provides context for its contribution. The Ryzen 9 7900X has an average benchmark score of 50556, which is practically identical to the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 (50598, a delta of -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (50738, -0.4%), and the Intel Core i7-13850HX (50827, -0.5%). The Intel Core i9-13980HX is also close at 50944, a -0.8% delta. This means the 7900X is not a performance outlier; it is squarely in a cluster of capable processors, and any differences in Flight Simulator frame rates would be minimal.

The GPU's rivals tell a similar story. The RX 6700 XT's average score of 33721 puts it 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (33493) and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (33294). It is 1% behind both the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (34050) and the AMD Radeon RX 480 (34059). These deltas are tiny, meaning the GPU is performing as expected for its class. The combo rank of 994 out of 1795 is therefore not a surprise; it is a mid-pack result driven by a strong CPU paired with a mid-tier GPU, which is exactly what the benchmark breakdown shows.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 22 chip, and its specifications explain the measured results. The GPU has a base clock of 2321 MHz and a boost clock of 2581 MHz, with a game clock of 2424 MHz. It comes with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. These figures are relevant because Microsoft Flight Simulator is a title that relies heavily on streaming textures and geometry, which puts pressure on memory capacity and bandwidth.

The data shows that the 12 GB frame buffer is sufficient for the tested presets, but the bandwidth appears to be a limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 38.2, which is the lowest measured result. The GPU's 64 ROPs and 160 TMUs are handling the rasterization workload, but the 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K with Ultra settings. The pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s are reasonable for 1080p and 1440p, but they explain why 4K requires dropping to Low settings to achieve a playable 68.1 FPS.

The GPU's percentile rank of 77 against all GPUs is consistent with its performance in this game. It is not a top-tier card, and the benchmark results reflect that. The measured FPS at 1440p High (53.5) and 4K High (40.3) show that the card can handle the game, but not at the highest quality levels. The GPU is the clear bottleneck in this combo, and the data suggests that overclocking or tweaking the memory clock would not change the fundamental performance ceiling set by the 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the results are solid. Low settings deliver an average of 122.7 FPS, which is smooth on any display. Medium settings drop to 96.5 FPS, and High comes in at 70.1 FPS. Ultra is still playable at 67.3 FPS, but the jump from High to Ultra is only 4% lower, indicating that the preset is more demanding without a proportional frame rate cost. The 1080p data shows that this combo can handle the game at high refresh rates if you are willing to compromise on settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages fall as expected. Low settings produce 96.4 FPS, which is excellent for a flight sim. Medium yields 73.5 FPS, and High drops to 53.5 FPS. Ultra is nearly identical to High at 53.7 FPS, which is an anomaly in the data — the Ultra preset is not meaningfully slower than High at this resolution. This suggests that the GPU is hitting a similar bottleneck at both settings, and the visual difference between High and Ultra is not costing you frames.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overworked. Low settings average 68.1 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 60 FPS. Medium drops to 57.2 FPS, High to 40.3 FPS, and Ultra to 38.2 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 29.8%, which is significant, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 5.2%. This indicates that High and Ultra are both stressing the GPU to its limit at 4K, and the extra fidelity of Ultra comes at a minimal frame rate cost relative to the jump from Medium.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where it averages 68.1 FPS. At Medium, the average drops to 57.2 FPS, and at High or Ultra, it falls to 40.3 FPS and 38.2 FPS respectively, which may be too choppy for some users.

Q: What is the best resolution for a smooth experience?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the sweet spot. Even at Ultra settings, the combo averages 67.3 FPS, and at Low settings it reaches 122.7 FPS. 1440p is also viable, with Low hitting 96.4 FPS and Medium at 73.5 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The frame rate drops significantly from 1080p to 4K, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The Ryzen 9 7900X, with its high boost clock and 93rd percentile CPU rank, has ample headroom.

Q: How does the RX 6700 XT compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 33721 is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6800 and 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A5000. It is 1% lower than the AMD Radeon HD 7950 and RX 480. These differences are minor and unlikely to cause noticeable frame rate changes.

Q: Should I use the High or Ultra preset at 1440p?

A: The measured data shows almost no difference: High averages 53.5 FPS and Ultra averages 53.7 FPS. Since the frame rates are effectively the same, you can enable Ultra for better visuals without sacrificing performance.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking?

A: This CPU and GPU pairing ranks 994 out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a mid-pack result, consistent with a high-end CPU paired with a mid-range GPU.

Settings Recommendations

For a 1920x1080 display, the data supports using High or Ultra settings. High gives you 70.1 FPS, which is smooth, and Ultra only drops to 67.3 FPS. The visual upgrade from High to Ultra is worth the 4% frame rate loss. If you have a high-refresh monitor, Low or Medium at 122.7 FPS or 96.5 FPS respectively will give you the fastest response, but you will sacrifice image quality.

At 2560x1440, the best experience per the measured rows is Medium settings, which delivers 73.5 FPS. This is a comfortable frame rate for a flight simulator. If you prioritize visuals, High and Ultra are nearly identical at 53.5 FPS and 53.7 FPS, so you can choose Ultra without penalty. Low is also viable at 96.4 FPS, but it removes a lot of detail that enhances the sim experience.

For 3840x2160, the recommendation is clear: use Low settings for 68.1 FPS. Medium is playable at 57.2 FPS, but the drop to High (40.3 FPS) and Ultra (38.2 FPS) is steep. The data shows that the GPU cannot handle higher presets at 4K, so Low is the only way to maintain a fluid frame rate. If 4K is your target, you must accept the visual compromise or consider a more powerful GPU.