Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank for the Core i7-14700F with the RX 9070 XT in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 463rd out of 1,795 tested combos for this game, placing it in the top 25.8% of all configurations tested.

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

A: The Core i7-14700F scores 54,097 on average, which is 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (54,450) and 1.1% behind the Ryzen 9 9900X3D (54,681). It is 1.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 and 1.7% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313P.

Q: What is the best 4K result for this combo?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 94.4 on Low settings. Medium delivers 74.3 FPS, while High and Ultra both land near 55 FPS (55 and 55.3, respectively).

Q: How much does the GPU's memory bandwidth contribute to performance?

A: The RX 9070 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This is paired with a boost clock of 2970 MHz and a game clock of 2400 MHz.

Q: Does the CPU support overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier is locked, meaning the Core i7-14700F cannot be overclocked via multiplier adjustments. Its boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz from a 2.10 GHz base across 20 cores and 28 threads.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 9070 XT sits at the 82nd percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 39,647. Its closest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (0.1% behind) and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (0.2% ahead).

# How This Combo Ranks

The data places this pairing at rank 463 out of 1,795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That is a strong showing, though not elite. The position suggests that while both components are capable, the game's demands create a ceiling that prevents this combo from breaking into the top 400.

What makes this rank interesting is the delta between CPU and GPU percentiles. The processor sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs. The combo rank being lower than either percentile hints that the game is not purely bound by one component; instead, the interaction between the two creates a bottleneck profile that limits overall placement.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 54,097 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. The Ryzen 9 9900X scores 54,450, a mere 0.6% difference. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D is 1.1% ahead. These are tiny margins, indicating that CPU-side headroom is not the primary constraint. Yet the combo still lands outside the top 400, which points toward the GPU or the game engine itself as the limiting factor.

The GPU's average score of 39,647 places it just below the Radeon Pro 575 (39,703) and above the RTX A500 Mobile (39,568). The differences are fractions of a percent. This clustering suggests the RX 9070 XT is a mid-pack performer in general benchmarks, but in Flight Simulator specifically, its architectural strengths may not translate directly into frame rate dominance.

When you consider that 1,332 other combos rank below this one, the configuration is clearly respectable. But the gap to the top is not trivial. The data implies that pushing higher would require either a stronger GPU or a CPU with more cache or higher single-thread performance, though the CPU's 94th percentile ranking argues against the processor being the weak link.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern: as resolution increases, frame rates drop proportionally, but the rate of decline varies by settings preset. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 165.2 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 131 FPS, a 20.7% reduction. At 4K Low, 94.4 FPS represents a 42.9% drop from 1080p.

The High preset shows a similar trend. From 95.9 FPS at 1080p to 77.2 FPS at 1440p is a 19.5% decline, and then to 55 FPS at 4K is another 28.8% drop. Ultra follows the same shape: 93.6 to 72.4 (22.6% down), then to 55.3 (23.7% down from 1440p).

These numbers tell a story about the limiting component. The percentage drops from 1080p to 1440p are consistent across settings, hovering around 20-23%. That is a classic sign of GPU limitation, as resolution scaling directly increases pixel throughput demands. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller drops at lower settings where the GPU has less work per frame.

But the 1440p-to-4K transitions are steeper for Low (28.0% drop) than for Ultra (23.6% drop). Low settings reduce GPU load substantially, so the CPU has more influence. The fact that 4K Low still delivers 94.4 FPS while 4K Ultra delivers only 55.3 FPS shows the GPU is still the dominant constraint even at low settings. The CPU, with its 20 cores and 28 threads, has enough throughput to feed frames at these rates.

The data suggests that players targeting 60 FPS have headroom at 4K with Medium settings (74.3 FPS), but Ultra at 4K sits right at the edge of playability. The scaling behavior confirms that this is a GPU-bound scenario for most of the settings range.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers a wide spread of results. Low settings produce 165.2 FPS, which is exceptionally smooth. Medium drops to 126.9 FPS, still well above refresh-rate thresholds for most monitors. High yields 95.9 FPS, and Ultra comes in at 93.6 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 2.3 FPS, which is negligible in practice.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers compress. Low hits 131 FPS, Medium 101 FPS, High 77.2 FPS, and Ultra 72.4 FPS. The Medium-to-High gap widens to 23.8 FPS, while High-to-Ultra narrows to 4.8 FPS. This pattern repeats at 4K.

At 3840x2160, the results are 94.4 FPS on Low, 74.3 FPS on Medium, 55 FPS on High, and 55.3 FPS on Ultra. Notably, High and Ultra are nearly identical at 4K, differing by just 0.3 FPS. This is an important finding: the visual difference between High and Ultra at 4K costs almost no performance, so players might as well enable Ultra.

The 1080p-to-1440p scaling at High settings shows a 19.5% drop (95.9 to 77.2). At Medium, the drop is 20.4% (126.9 to 101). At Low, it is 20.7% (165.2 to 131). These consistent percentages reinforce that the GPU is handling the extra pixels with predictable efficiency.

The 4K results reveal diminishing returns from settings increases. Medium at 4K (74.3 FPS) is 34.8% faster than High (55 FPS). But High and Ultra are basically tied. This suggests that the Ultra preset at 4K introduces effects that are not pixel-bound, yet the GPU still manages to match High's frame rate.

# GPU Role

The RX 9070 XT is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The GPU has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, along with 64 ray tracing cores.

Memory is a defining feature: 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus delivers 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2518 MHz, translating to 20.1 Gbps effective. This bandwidth is critical for Flight Simulator, which streams large terrain and texture datasets. The 16 GB capacity means texture loading at 4K Ultra is unlikely to hit memory ceilings.

Clock speeds are aggressive. The base clock is 1660 MHz, the game clock is 2400 MHz, and the boost reaches 2970 MHz. The FP32 throughput is 48.66 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 97.32 TFLOPS via 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 380.2 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 760.3 GTexel/s.

In the measured results, the GPU's role is evident in the scaling behavior. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages 55.3 FPS, which is just above the 55 FPS at 4K High. This near-identical performance suggests the GPU is hitting a computational wall rather than a memory or bandwidth limit. The 644.6 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient; the shading units are the constraint.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 82 places it in the upper tier, but not the top. Its nearest rivals in average score are all within 0.6%, indicating that the RX 9070 XT is a known quantity. In Flight Simulator, the card's performance at 1440p Medium (101 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (93.6 FPS) shows it can handle high refresh rates at lower resolutions, but 4K Ultra demands more than it can deliver for 60+ FPS.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and refresh rate. At 1080p, every preset delivers playable frame rates. Low hits 165.2 FPS, Medium 126.9 FPS, and both High and Ultra exceed 93 FPS. For a 144Hz monitor, Medium is the sweet spot, offering 126.9 FPS with a comfortable margin. Ultra at 93.6 FPS is still smooth but sacrifices headroom.

At 1440p, Low (131 FPS) and Medium (101 FPS) are both excellent for high-refresh displays. High at 77.2 FPS is good for 60-75Hz screens, while Ultra at 72.4 FPS is nearly as good. The difference between High and Ultra is only 4.8 FPS, so enabling Ultra is a free visual upgrade.

At 4K, the choice is more constrained. Low produces 94.4 FPS, which is fine for 60Hz but leaves no room for dips. Medium at 74.3 FPS is the best balance for consistent 60 FPS gameplay. High and Ultra are effectively tied at 55 and 55.3 FPS, respectively. Since there is no performance penalty, Ultra is the recommended preset for 4K users who want maximum visual fidelity, but they should accept that frame rates will hover in the mid-50s.

The data shows that Medium is the most versatile preset across all resolutions. It delivers 126.9 FPS at 1080p, 101 FPS at 1440p, and 74.3 FPS at 4K. This makes Medium the default recommendation for players who prioritize smoothness over extreme detail. For those who prefer visuals, Ultra at 1440p (72.4 FPS) is a better choice than High at 4K (55 FPS), offering more than 30% higher frame rate with comparable quality.

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache.

The CPU's benchmark scores are impressive. Cinebench R23 multi-core reaches 35,443, while single-core hits 5,003. Geekbench multi-core is 16,571, and single-core 2,711. Passmark multi-thread scores 41,765, with single-thread at 4,261. These numbers place the CPU at the 94th percentile among all processors.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle flight dynamics, AI traffic, and physics simulation. The 28 threads provide ample parallel processing, and the 5.40 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance for the game's main simulation thread. The 33 MB of L3 cache helps with terrain data locality.

The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 165.2 FPS, which is high enough that CPU overhead could become relevant. Yet the frame rates remain strong, suggesting the 14700F has sufficient headroom. The CPU's nearest rivals are all within 1.7% in average score, so there is no dramatic CPU-side advantage to be gained.

However, the CPU's locked multiplier is a limitation for enthusiasts. With a TDP of 65 W, it is not designed for extreme overclocking. The 20-core configuration includes both performance and efficiency cores, which the game's scheduler must handle. The data does not show any stutter or frame pacing issues, so the scheduler is managing threads effectively.

The CPU's percentile of 94 versus the GPU's 82 suggests that the processor is more capable relative to its peers. This asymmetry means that future GPU upgrades could unlock more performance without needing a CPU change. The 14700F is a balanced partner for the RX 9070 XT in this title, providing enough computational power to let the GPU work at its limits.