Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured data shows a clear hierarchy across the three resolutions tested. At 1080p, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 100.6 FPS, which is only 1.1 FPS less than High at 101.7 FPS. The gap between Medium (136.6 FPS) and Low (176.1 FPS) is substantial, but Ultra remains above the 100 FPS threshold, making it a viable choice for smooth simulation at this resolution.

At 1440p, the situation tightens. Ultra yields 76.8 FPS, while High sits at 82.1 FPS — a 5.3 FPS difference. Medium jumps to 112.2 FPS, and Low reaches 139.8 FPS. The data suggests that High is the sweet spot at 1440p, as it maintains playable frame rates while presumably retaining most visual fidelity. Pushing to Ultra costs 5.3 FPS, which may be acceptable for users prioritizing image quality over a small margin of performance.

At 4K, the trade-offs become more pronounced. Ultra drops to 58.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold commonly associated with fluid gameplay. High, at 61.8 FPS, just clears that bar. Medium provides a more comfortable 79.2 FPS, and Low reaches 103.5 FPS. For the best experience at 4K, High is the recommended preset, as it delivers 61.8 FPS — the highest setting that remains above 60 FPS. Users seeking higher frame rates could step down to Medium for an additional 17.4 FPS, but High offers the optimal balance between visual quality and performance in the measured data.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT brings 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding 800.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1387 MHz, with a boost clock of 2394 MHz and a game clock of 2025 MHz. These specifications are directly relevant to Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for streaming large textures and terrain data — the 20 GB frame buffer provides ample headroom for high-resolution assets at 4K.

The GPU's shading units number 5376, with 336 texture mapping units and 192 render output units. Its 84 ray tracing cores support DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the game can leverage for enhanced lighting effects. The pixel rate of 459.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 804.4 GTexel/s indicate strong fill-rate capabilities, which matter for the dense scenery rendering typical of flight simulation.

Benchmark results place this GPU in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 38358. In the measured FPS data, the RX 7900 XT demonstrates clear scaling with resolution — from 176.1 FPS at 1080p Low to 58.8 FPS at 4K Ultra. The 20 GB VRAM capacity is unlikely to be a limiting factor at any tested setting, as even the most demanding 4K Ultra preset maintains playable performance. The memory clock of 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) supports the bandwidth needed for high-resolution textures without bottlenecking the core.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-13700K and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT ranks 380 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 21.2% of configurations. This is a strong showing, though not among the absolute elite, indicating that the pairing is well-balanced for this particular title.

The CPU component alone sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 47282. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700KF at 47334 (0.1% ahead), the AMD EPYC 4364P at 47131 (0.3% behind), and the Intel Core i9-12900F at 47081 (0.4% behind). These tiny deltaPct values suggest the i7-13700K is performance-equivalent to its closest competitors, with no single rival holding a meaningful advantage.

The GPU, by contrast, ranks in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 38358. Its nearest rivals show similarly tight margins: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile at 38349 (0% delta), the NVIDIA CMP 70HX at 38225 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 at 38494 (0.4% behind). These near-identical scores indicate the RX 7900 XT sits in a dense performance cluster where fractional differences separate products.

Given the combo's rank of 380 out of 1795, the data indicates that while both components are individually strong, the pairing does not reach the top tier in this specific game. This likely reflects Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy single-thread and memory bandwidth demands, where the i7-13700K's strengths (16 cores, 24 threads, 5.40 GHz boost) are not fully utilized, and the GPU's raw compute is partially constrained by the game's engine characteristics.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the measured FPS values form a clear progression: Low delivers 176.1 FPS, Medium drops to 136.6 FPS, High settles at 101.7 FPS, and Ultra yields 100.6 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 39.5 FPS reduction, while the step from Medium to High is 34.9 FPS. Interestingly, the gap between High and Ultra is minimal at only 1.1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds mostly cosmetic effects that have little impact on performance at this resolution.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low produces 139.8 FPS, Medium 112.2 FPS, High 82.1 FPS, and Ultra 76.8 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 27.6 FPS, Medium-to-High is 30.1 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 5.3 FPS. The larger gap between Medium and High at 1440p compared to 1080p indicates that the higher resolution amplifies the cost of certain settings, particularly those affecting geometry and texture detail.

At 4K, the values compress further. Low achieves 103.5 FPS, Medium 79.2 FPS, High 61.8 FPS, and Ultra 58.8 FPS. The Low-to-Medium reduction is 24.3 FPS, Medium-to-High is 17.4 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 3.0 FPS. At this resolution, the Ultra preset's additional 3.0 FPS cost over High is negligible, but both fall below or near the 60 FPS mark, making the choice between them a matter of preference rather than performance necessity.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p shows consistent frame rate reductions across all settings. At Low, FPS drops from 176.1 to 139.8, a 36.3 FPS decrease (20.6%). At Medium, the drop is from 136.6 to 112.2, a 24.4 FPS decrease (17.9%). High falls from 101.7 to 82.1, a 19.6 FPS decrease (19.3%), and Ultra drops from 100.6 to 76.8, a 23.8 FPS decrease (23.7%). These relatively uniform percentage reductions suggest that the system remains balanced between CPU and GPU at these resolutions.

Moving from 1440p to 4K, the pattern changes. Low drops from 139.8 to 103.5, a 36.3 FPS decrease (26.0%). Medium falls from 112.2 to 79.2, a 33.0 FPS decrease (29.4%). High drops from 82.1 to 61.8, a 20.3 FPS decrease (24.7%). Ultra falls from 76.8 to 58.8, an 18.0 FPS decrease (23.4%). The larger percentage drops at 4K indicate that the GPU becomes increasingly the limiting component as pixel count rises.

The data reveals that the CPU, with its 16 cores and 24 threads, is well-suited to handle the simulation's logic at lower resolutions, where the GPU has spare capacity. However, at 4K, the GPU's rendering load dominates, and the frame rate scales more directly with the resolution's pixel count. The 20 GB VRAM ensures that memory capacity is never a constraint, but the 800.0 GB/s bandwidth may be a factor in the observed scaling. Overall, the system demonstrates healthy resolution scaling, with no unexpected bottlenecks at any tested configuration. The i7-13700K's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5505) supports the game's physics and AI calculations, while the RX 7900 XT's compute capabilities (51.48 TFLOPS FP32) handle the visual load effectively.