Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K with the AMD Radeon RX 570 produces a system where the graphics card is the primary bottleneck at every tested resolution. The data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the CPU provides ample headroom, but the GPU's performance ceiling limits frame rates to below 50 FPS even at 1080p Low settings. Consequently, the experience is generally smooth only at lower resolutions and settings, with higher presets and 4K resolutions resulting in unplayable frame rates.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a high-end 16-core processor with 24 threads, a 3.40 GHz base clock, and a 5.40 GHz boost clock. This Raptor Lake architecture CPU sits in the 89th percentile of all tested processors, indicating strong overall performance. Its multi-threaded capabilities are substantial, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30745 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 19429. Single-thread performance is equally robust, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2116 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2529.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured frame rates are so low that the CPU is never the limiting factor. For instance, at 1080p Low, the average FPS is 48, while at 4K Low, it drops to 29. This drastic reduction in performance as resolution increases is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck; the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with data, but the graphics card cannot process it quickly enough. The processor's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375, have nearly identical average benchmark scores (46971 and 47022 respectively), with a delta of -0.2% and -0.3%, meaning they are essentially performance peers. The data suggests that swapping the i7-13700K for a similarly performing CPU would not change the game's outcome, as the frame rates are dictated by the GPU.

The 16 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient for this flight simulator, which typically does not scale perfectly across all cores. The high boost clock of 5.40 GHz is beneficial for the simulator's single-threaded workloads, but the GPU's limitations prevent this advantage from being fully realized. The benchmark results indicate that this CPU is overqualified for the task when paired with the RX 570, as the frame rates are consistently low across all settings, regardless of the CPU's capabilities. The data points to a system where the processor's power is wasted, as the graphics card cannot keep up, making the CPU's role largely passive in determining the final FPS.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is a legacy graphics card from the Polaris generation, featuring 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz and a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. Its base clock is 1168 MHz with a boost clock of 1244 MHz. The GPU's overall performance places it in the 74th percentile of all tested GPUs, but its age and 4 GB VRAM capacity are significant liabilities for a modern, demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU's impact on performance is severe. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 28, which is already low for smooth gameplay. The situation worsens dramatically at 4K, where the High preset yields an average of just 17 FPS. The 4 GB VRAM is likely a major contributor to these low scores, as the simulator requires substantial memory for high-resolution textures and complex scenery. The data shows that the RX 570 is directly responsible for the system's performance ceiling; the GPU's benchmark scores, such as a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 880 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 42752, are modest compared to modern cards, but the relative performance against its rivals is telling.

The nearest GPU rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800M with an average score of 28874 (delta of -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X with a score of 28580 (delta of 0.7%). This indicates that the RX 570 performs on par with these other older or mobile parts, but none of them are well-suited for high-end gaming. The GPU's 150 W TDP and dual-slot design are typical for its class, but the 14 nm process node and GCN 4.0 architecture are outdated. The measured results confirm that the RX 570 is the constraining component, as every FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is directly tied to the GPU's inability to render the scene at higher resolutions. The GPU's role is to be the bottleneck, and it does so consistently, preventing the powerful CPU from making any meaningful difference.

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

The FPS scaling across resolutions provides a definitive diagnosis of the system's bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 48, which drops to 39 at 1440p Low, and finally to 29 at 4K Low. This represents a 39.6% drop from 1080p to 4K. For the High preset, the numbers are 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 at 1440p, and 17 at 4K, a 39.3% reduction. The Medium preset shows 38 FPS at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and 22 at 4K, a 42.1% drop. Finally, the Ultra preset shows 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 at 1440p, and 16 at 4K, a 40.7% decrease.

These percentage drops are relatively consistent across all settings, which is a strong indicator that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively constant regardless of resolution, but the data clearly shows a linear decline as pixel count increases. The scaling pattern suggests that the RX 570's 224.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient to handle the increased data load at higher resolutions. For instance, moving from 1080p to 1440p increases the pixel count by 77.8%, but the FPS only drops by about 18.8% on Low settings, indicating that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound but also memory-bound. However, moving from 1440p to 4K increases pixels by another 125%, and the FPS drops by another 25.6%, showing the memory pressure is intensifying.

The data indicates that the system is completely GPU-limited. The CPU's performance does not change with resolution, but the GPU's does, and the measured FPS reflects that. At 4K, the average FPS across all settings is between 16 and 29, which is below the threshold for playable performance. The fact that the FPS drops are not perfectly proportional to the pixel count increase suggests that the GPU is also struggling with memory capacity, likely due to the 4 GB VRAM limit. The conclusion is clear: the limiting component is the GPU, and its performance degrades predictably as resolution increases, making 4K effectively unplayable and 1080p the only viable option for acceptable frame rates.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination are at 1080p with the Low preset, which yields an average of 48 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate, though it is still not ideal for a smooth experience. The 1080p Medium preset provides 38 FPS, which might be acceptable for some users but is noticeably lower. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p produce 28 and 27 FPS respectively, which are borderline unplayable due to stuttering and lack of fluidity.

At 1440p, the Low preset gives 39 FPS, which is playable but requires a significant visual compromise. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 30 FPS, which is the minimum for a playable experience, but the High and Ultra presets at 23 and 22 FPS are not recommended. At 4K, all presets are unplayable, with the Low preset being the "best" at 29 FPS, but this still falls short of a smooth experience. The data suggests that the user must prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The Low preset at 1080p is the only setting that consistently stays above 45 FPS, providing a playable experience.

The Medium preset at 1080p is a compromise, offering better visuals but at a 20.8% performance penalty compared to Low. However, the jump from Medium to High at 1080p only costs 10 FPS (from 38 to 28), which is a 26.3% drop, making High less attractive. The Ultra preset provides no meaningful benefit over High at 1080p, with only a 1 FPS difference, so it should be avoided. In conclusion, the best experience per the measured rows is achieved at 1080p Low, with 1080p Medium as a secondary option for those who can tolerate lower frame rates. The data indicates that any attempt to increase resolution or settings beyond this point will result in a significant loss of performance.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 3538 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 5% of all tested systems, indicating that it is one of the least capable configurations for this particular game. The rank is a direct reflection of the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is high-performing but unable to compensate for the graphics card's poor results.

The benchmark results show that the combo's performance is severely handicapped by the RX 570. While the CPU alone is in the 89th percentile, the combined system performance is in the bottom percentile, demonstrating that the GPU is the dominant factor in determining the final rank. The low rank of 3538 is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows that the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at 1080p Low. The combo's position in the rankings is not surprising given the age and specifications of the GPU, which is end-of-life and based on a 14 nm process.

The data indicates that this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as it ranks below the vast majority of other tested systems. The only positive aspect is that the CPU provides a strong foundation, but it is wasted in this pairing. The rank is a clear verdict: this combo is underpowered for the game, and users would need to significantly lower settings or resolution to achieve any semblance of playability. The fact that it ranks 3538 out of 3714 means that only 176 other combos are worse, making this a very poor choice for this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The best measured performance is at 1080p with the Low preset, which achieves an average of 48 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p is a secondary option at 38 FPS, but any higher settings or resolution result in average FPS below 30.

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

A: The data clearly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The FPS drops significantly from 1080p to 4K (e.g., from 48 to 29 FPS on Low settings), while the CPU has high benchmark scores. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the game's demands.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 3538 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 5% of systems. This is a very poor ranking, directly attributable to the AMD Radeon RX 570's limited performance.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-13700K a good match for the AMD Radeon RX 570?

A: No, the data shows a significant imbalance. The CPU performs in the 89th percentile, but the GPU's performance is too low to utilize it. The system is heavily GPU-limited, and the CPU's power is wasted in this pairing.

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 4K Ultra is 16 FPS, which is unplayable. The High preset at 4K only achieves 17 FPS, indicating that 4K resolutions are not viable with this GPU.

Q: Are there any playable settings at 1440p?

A: The Low preset at 1440p achieves an average of 39 FPS, which is technically playable but requires significant visual compromises. The Medium preset at 1440p drops to 30 FPS, which is borderline, while High and Ultra are not recommended due to frame rates of 23 and 22 FPS respectively.