Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i7-13700K compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Core i7-13700K posts an average benchmark score of 47282, which is effectively tied with the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47334 (a -0.1% delta). It sits 0.3% above the AMD EPYC 4364P (47131) and 0.4% above the Intel Core i9-12900F (47081).

Q: What is the GPU's performance tier relative to other graphics cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT holds a 71st percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27985. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, scores 27956 (0.1% delta), while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is 0.9% ahead at 28238.

Q: At which resolution and settings does this combo achieve the highest average frame rate?

A: The best measured result is 99.5 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 79.2 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 75.6 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded for this combination?

A: The lowest average is 32.1 FPS at 3840x2160 with High settings. The Ultra preset at 4K is only slightly better at 33.5 FPS, indicating a narrow margin between these two demanding configurations.

Q: How well does this CPU perform in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Core i7-13700K scores 39000 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 12412 in 3DMark max threads. Its PassMark multithread score is 45887, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Does the GPU outperform its closest rival in DirectX 12 tests?

A: In PassMark DirectX 12, the RX 6600 XT scores 61. This data point, combined with its overall 0.1% delta over the GTX 980 Ti, shows the GPU's synthetic lead is marginal rather than decisive.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a 16-core, 24-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz boosts to 5.40 GHz, and it carries a 30 MB shared L3 cache alongside 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. This configuration is well-suited to Microsoft Flight Simulator, which scales with both high single-thread performance and substantial multi-thread capacity for background simulation tasks.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates a balanced profile. The single-thread score of 1136 in 3DMark and 5505 in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate strong per-core efficiency. Multi-thread results are equally robust: 3DMark 16-thread yields 10717, while Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 39000. Geekbench multi-core records 17731, and PassMark integer math scores 154446. These numbers suggest the processor can feed the GPU efficiently across varied workloads.

The 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs places the i7-13700K firmly in high-end territory. Its nearest rivals include the i7-13700KF (0.1% higher average score) and the EPYC 4364P (0.3% lower), showing that the chip's performance envelope is tightly clustered with other strong desktop processors. The boost clock of 5.40 GHz is particularly relevant for Flight Simulator's engine, which relies on rapid single-threaded calculations for flight physics and scenery loading.

The CPU's 125 W TDP and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory allow flexible system configuration. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide ample bandwidth for the GPU, though the RX 6600 XT itself uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The integrated UHD Graphics 770 offers a fallback display output, but the discrete GPU handles all rendering in this benchmark setup.

How This Combo Ranks

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific CPU-GPU combination ranks 1365 out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. This ranking reflects the pairing's overall capability in this particular title, which is heavily dependent on both CPU simulation logic and GPU rendering throughput.

The rank indicates that while the CPU is top-tier (93rd percentile) and the GPU is solidly mid-range (71st percentile), their combined performance in Flight Simulator falls below many other tested configurations. This is consistent with the game's reputation for demanding high-end graphics hardware, especially at higher resolutions. The GPU's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth may become limiting factors when rendering dense scenery and weather effects.

Comparatively, the RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score of 27985 places it just 0.1% above the GTX 980 Ti and 0.4% above the Radeon R9 M395X. The RTX 3070 is 0.9% ahead, which is a modest synthetic gap but could translate to larger real-world differences in a simulation-heavy workload. The combo's rank of 1365 suggests that users seeking higher frame rates in Flight Simulator would need a more powerful GPU, as the CPU is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck at most settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimal settings based on resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 99.5 FPS, Medium reaches 75.6 FPS, High produces 58.6 FPS, and Ultra drops to 55.6 FPS. For smooth gameplay on standard monitors, Medium offers a strong balance at 75.6 FPS, while High remains playable for those prioritizing visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, Low achieves 79.2 FPS, Medium hits 60.8 FPS, High yields 45 FPS, and Ultra manages 46.8 FPS. The Medium preset is the sweet spot here, providing exactly 60.8 FPS which is ideal for 60 Hz displays. The near-identical results between High (45) and Ultra (46.8) suggest diminishing returns at higher settings, making Ultra unexpectedly viable at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes dramatically. Low produces 60.3 FPS, Medium drops to 43.6 FPS, Ultra reaches 33.5 FPS, and High is the worst at 32.1 FPS. The anomalous High result (lower than Ultra) indicates a possible driver or optimization quirk. For 4K users, Low is the only preset that maintains fluid motion, while Medium at 43.6 FPS may suffice for less demanding scenarios.

The best overall experience per the data is 1920x1080 Medium at 75.6 FPS, which balances visual quality with headroom above 60 FPS. For 1440p, Medium at 60.8 FPS is the recommended choice. At 4K, users should accept Low settings to maintain playability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results show a consistent pattern across resolutions, with average frame rates declining as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the settings ladder spans from 99.5 FPS (Low) down to 55.6 FPS (Ultra). The incremental drops are: Low to Medium (-23.9 FPS), Medium to High (-17 FPS), and High to Ultra (-3 FPS). The small gap between High and Ultra suggests the Ultra preset adds minimal visual benefit relative to its performance cost at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the range tightens: Low delivers 79.2 FPS, Medium 60.8 FPS, High 45 FPS, and Ultra 46.8 FPS. Notably, Ultra outperforms High by 1.8 FPS, which is within measurement variance but still indicates that the High preset may be suboptimally configured. The drop from Medium to High is 15.8 FPS, while Low to Medium is 18.4 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are more compressed: Low reaches 60.3 FPS, Medium 43.6 FPS, Ultra 33.5 FPS, and High 32.1 FPS. The anomaly of High being slower than Ultra (by 1.4 FPS) persists at 4K, reinforcing that the High preset is not recommended for this combo. The resolution scaling from 1440p to 4K at Low settings costs 18.9 FPS, while at Medium it costs 17.2 FPS.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings: Low at 1080p (99.5) beats 1440p (79.2) by 20.3 FPS and 4K (60.3) by 39.2 FPS. Medium at 1080p (75.6) leads 1440p (60.8) by 14.8 FPS and 4K (43.6) by 32 FPS. Ultra at 1080p (55.6) edges out 1440p (46.8) by 8.8 FPS and 4K (33.5) by 22.1 FPS. These deltas indicate that resolution scaling is consistent, with roughly 20-30% performance losses per step up in resolution.

The data shows no min or max FPS values, so only average frame rates are available for analysis. All twelve measured configurations produce averages above 30 FPS, with the weakest being 4K High at 32.1 FPS. The strongest configuration, 1080p Low at 99.5 FPS, approaches triple-digit performance but does not exceed it.