Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination delivers a highly capable Microsoft Flight Simulator experience, particularly at 1440p and 1080p. The data shows a system that can handle the simulator's demanding rendering loads, though 4K Ultra settings push the GPU to its limits. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, component roles, and optimal settings based strictly on the measured FPS data and component specifications.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combination ranks 843rd out of 1795 tested combos in the database for this game. This places it in the upper-middle tier of all systems tested, indicating a solid but not top-tier performance level for this specific title.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 7900X compare to its nearest CPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 9 7900X has an average benchmark score of 50556. It is 0.1% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, 0.4% below the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT, 0.5% below the Intel Core i7-13850HX, and 0.8% below the Intel Core i9-13980HX. These are all extremely tight margins, showing near-identical overall CPU performance among these models.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 129.1, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only setting that pushes the frame rate into the triple-digit range, with the next closest being 102.9 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded, and under what conditions?

A: The lowest average FPS is 40.9, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. This is the only measured configuration that falls below the 42.9 FPS mark seen at 4K with High settings, indicating that 4K Ultra is the most demanding scenario for this hardware.

Q: How much VRAM does the RX 6750 XT have, and what is its memory bandwidth?

A: The GPU has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed as 2250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. This VRAM capacity is substantial for a flight simulator that loads extensive scenery and aircraft models.

Q: What is the boost clock of the CPU and the game clock of the GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT has a game clock of 2495 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. These high clocks contribute to the system's ability to handle both the simulation's physics and its rendering tasks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 843 out of 1795 places it in the 47th percentile of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a noteworthy position, as it suggests the pairing is more capable than the average system tested, but it is not among the elite performers. The CPU's own percentile rank is much higher at 93, indicating it is a top-tier processor. However, the GPU's percentile rank of 79 shows it is slightly less exceptional relative to other graphics cards.

This discrepancy between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's mid-tier rank highlights that the GPU is the limiting factor in this pairing for this specific game. The data suggests that while the Ryzen 9 7900X can feed frames rapidly, the RX 6750 XT cannot always keep up, especially at higher resolutions. The system is well-balanced for mainstream gaming, but it does not leverage the full potential of the 7900X in this simulator. The measured FPS numbers across all resolutions and settings confirm this, showing a clear performance ceiling imposed by the graphics card.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the primary driver of the rendering workload in Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and a 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, it has the resources to handle the game's high-resolution textures and complex geometry. The GPU's 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs allow for efficient pixel processing, which is crucial for rendering the dense landscapes and detailed aircraft cockpits. Its base clock of 2150 MHz and boost clock of 2600 MHz ensure that it can maintain high throughput when demanded.

The benchmark results show the GPU's performance scaling with resolution. At 1920x1080, the card is able to deliver playable frame rates across all settings, from 71.1 FPS on Ultra to 129.1 FPS on Low. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease, but the card still holds up well, with a range of 55.7 FPS on Ultra to 102.9 FPS on Low. It is at 3840x2160 where the GPU's limitations become apparent, as the average FPS drops below the 60 FPS threshold for all settings, with Ultra at 40.9 FPS and High at 42.9 FPS.

The GPU's benchmark scores also provide context. Its PassMark G3D score is 20700, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2548. These figures place the GPU in the 79th percentile of all graphics cards, showing it is a solid performer. However, in the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its heavy demand on GPU resources, the card's performance is more modest. The data indicates that for a smooth 60 FPS experience, users should target 1080p or 1440p, as 4K requires significant compromises in visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system is clearly CPU-bound in many scenarios, with the GPU having ample headroom. The average FPS ranges from 129.1 at Low to 71.1 at Ultra. The jump from Low to Medium is a 28.7 FPS drop to 100.4, while the jump from Medium to High is a 24.3 FPS drop to 76.1. The final step to Ultra is a smaller 5.0 FPS drop. This suggests diminishing returns at the highest settings, but all presets remain playable.

At 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take on a larger role. The average FPS ranges from 102.9 at Low to 55.7 at Ultra. The scaling is more consistent here, with each settings increase resulting in roughly a 20 FPS drop. The system maintains a playable experience at High settings with 58.9 FPS, but Ultra dips below the 60 FPS mark. This resolution is a good balance between visual quality and performance, provided the user is willing to use High settings.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck. The average FPS ranges from 72.7 at Low to 40.9 at Ultra. Even at Low settings, the system cannot reach the high frame rates seen at lower resolutions, showing the 4K resolution's massive pixel count demand. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2.0 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated and the settings have less impact. For a 4K experience, users must accept frame rates in the 40-50 FPS range, which is playable but not ideal for a simulator that benefits from smooth motion.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture. Its base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz are extremely high, providing excellent single-thread performance that is critical for the simulation's core logic. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache helps to reduce latency when accessing frequently used data. The processor's benchmark scores are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 43695 and a single-core score of 6168.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the flight model, weather simulation, and AI traffic, which are often single-threaded or lightly threaded tasks. The 7900X's strong single-thread performance is evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 1093 and PassMark single-thread score of 4238. This ensures that the game's main logic runs smoothly without becoming a bottleneck in most scenarios.

However, the CPU's multi-threaded capabilities are also relevant. With 24 threads, it can handle background tasks and some of the game's more parallel workloads. The 3DMark max-threads score of 12536 shows the processor's ability to scale with increased thread usage. In this combo, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, as its performance is significantly higher than what the GPU can render at higher resolutions. The data shows that at 1080p, the CPU is able to push frame rates to 129.1 FPS on Low settings, but at 4K, the GPU's rendering time dominates, making the CPU less relevant to the final FPS number.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and performance targets. For 1920x1080, the High preset is the best choice for a balanced experience, offering 76.1 FPS. This provides a significant visual upgrade over Medium's 100.4 FPS while maintaining a frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra at 71.1 FPS is also viable for users who want maximum visual fidelity and have a 1440p or lower refresh rate monitor.

For 2560x1440, the High preset is the clear recommendation, delivering 58.9 FPS. This is just below the 60 FPS target but offers a substantial visual improvement over Medium's 77.8 FPS. Users with adaptive sync monitors will find this frame rate acceptable. The Ultra preset at 55.7 FPS is a marginal downgrade and is only recommended if the user prioritizes visuals over a few extra frames per second.

For 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Medium preset at 59.3 FPS is the only option that approaches the 60 FPS target. The High preset at 42.9 FPS and Ultra at 40.9 FPS both provide a more visually rich experience but with a significant performance penalty. For a 4K experience, the Medium preset is recommended as it balances the GPU load and provides a playable frame rate. Users who insist on higher settings at 4K should be prepared for a frame rate in the low 40s, which may impact the smoothness of the simulation. The data clearly shows that the system's sweet spot is 1440p High, where it delivers good visuals and solid performance.