Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The measured results for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i7-14700KF and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX show a clear pattern as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 188.4 FPS, which drops to 151.4 FPS at 1440p Low and further to 112.8 FPS at 4K Low. That is a 40.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. At Ultra, the drop is more moderate: 106.4 FPS at 1080p falls to 87.0 FPS at 1440p and 62.6 FPS at 4K — a 41.2% reduction overall.

The scaling pattern reveals that the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as resolution climbs. At 1080p, the delta between Low and Ultra is 82.0 FPS (188.4 vs 106.4), indicating that the CPU can feed frames fast enough for the GPU to be the bottleneck even at lower resolutions. However, at 4K, the gap narrows to 50.2 FPS (112.8 vs 62.6), suggesting that the RX 7900 XTX's rendering workload at higher pixel counts compresses the performance envelope.

The 1440p results sit almost exactly between the two extremes for every settings tier. For example, High at 1440p produces 87.3 FPS, which is 27.3 FPS below the 1080p High result but 21.9 FPS above the 4K High result. This linear scaling indicates that the RDNA 3.0 architecture handles resolution increases without sudden cliff effects. The 24 GB GDDR6 memory with 960.0 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom, as no memory-related stutter is evident in the average FPS data.

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

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams terrain and photogrammetry data, this capacity is more than sufficient even at 4K Ultra. The benchmark data shows no signs of VRAM throttling — the 4K Ultra average of 62.6 FPS is consistent with what the compute throughput suggests rather than a memory bottleneck.

Clocks play a supporting role here. The GPU's base clock is 1929 MHz, with a game clock of 2365 MHz and a boost clock of 2498 MHz. The 61.39 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 959.2 GTexel/s texture rate are the primary drivers of the measured results. At 4K Ultra, the 62.6 FPS average represents a 33.4% drop from the 1440p Ultra result of 87.0 FPS — a larger relative penalty than the 28.4% drop from 1080p Ultra (106.4 FPS) to 1440p Ultra. This suggests the GPU's shading units are the limiting factor at higher pixel counts, not the memory subsystem.

The CPU side also contributes. The Core i7-14700KF has 20 cores and 28 threads, with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its single-thread performance is critical for flight simulators, which often rely on a small number of heavily loaded threads. The measured 1080p Low result of 188.4 FPS indicates that the CPU can keep the GPU fed even at lower resolutions where the graphics load is lighter.

# FAQ

Q: Does this combo maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra?

A: Yes, the 4K Ultra average is 62.6 FPS, which is above the commonly accepted 60 FPS threshold. For a flight simulator where smooth panning matters, this is a usable result, though not exceptionally high.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from Ultra to High at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 87.0 FPS while High averages 87.3 FPS. The difference is negligible — only 0.3 FPS. This indicates that High and Ultra are nearly identical in cost at this resolution for this game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data shows a 82.0 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p (188.4 vs 106.4). This large spread suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck even at 1080p, as changing graphics settings materially impacts the frame rate. The CPU is capable of delivering over 188 FPS in this scenario.

Q: What is the scaling efficiency from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings?

A: Medium at 1080p produces 150.5 FPS, while 1440p Medium produces 119.7 FPS. That is a 20.5% reduction in frame rate for a 77.8% increase in pixel count. The sub-linear drop indicates the GPU has headroom at Medium settings.

Q: How does the 4K Low result compare to the 1080p Ultra result?

A: 4K Low averages 112.8 FPS, while 1080p Ultra averages 106.4 FPS. This means the combo can deliver higher frame rates at 4K with reduced settings than at 1080p with maximum settings, highlighting the GPU's strong raw performance.

Q: Is there a significant difference between Medium and High at any resolution?

A: At 1080p, Medium gives 150.5 FPS while High gives 114.6 FPS — a 35.9 FPS difference. At 1440p, the gap is 32.4 FPS (119.7 vs 87.3). At 4K, the gap narrows to 23.3 FPS (88.7 vs 65.4). The premium for High settings is consistent across resolutions.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy for this game. At 1080p, Ultra delivers 106.4 FPS — a strong result for a flight simulator, but the jump to High at 114.6 FPS costs only 8.2 FPS. Medium at 150.5 FPS offers a significant boost over High, while Low at 188.4 FPS is the maximum achievable. For most users at 1080p, High is the sweet spot: it provides near-Ultra fidelity with a modest FPS gain.

At 1440p, the situation is different. Ultra (87.0 FPS) and High (87.3 FPS) are statistically identical, so there is no reason to choose High over Ultra at this resolution. Medium at 119.7 FPS is a substantial improvement, and Low at 151.4 FPS is the ceiling. The recommendation for 1440p is Ultra, since it costs nothing extra over High.

At 4K, the choices matter more. Ultra at 62.6 FPS is playable but leaves little margin. High at 65.4 FPS is only 2.8 FPS better, so the visual quality of Ultra is worth keeping. Medium at 88.7 FPS offers a comfortable buffer, and Low at 112.8 FPS provides the smoothest experience. For a flight simulator where steady frame pacing matters, Medium at 4K is the balanced recommendation — it avoids the sub-70 FPS territory while retaining acceptable visual quality.

# How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU-GPU combination ranks 215th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the top 12% of all configurations tested. The ranking reflects the synergy between the Core i7-14700KF and the Radeon RX 7900 XTX. The CPU's 96th percentile standing among all CPUs (based on average benchmark score) and the GPU's 85th percentile among all GPUs combine to produce a strong overall result.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core i7-14700K (0% delta), AMD EPYC 9115 (0.3% faster), AMD Ryzen 9 9950X (0.4% slower), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (1.3% slower). This clustering indicates that the 14700KF is positioned at a performance plateau where small differences are within noise. For the GPU, nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (0.4% faster), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (0.8% slower), NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (1.6% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (2.0% faster). The RX 7900 XTX sits comfortably in this range.

The rank of 215 out of 1795 suggests that while this combo is strong, there are many configurations that outperform it — likely those with higher-end GPUs or CPUs with better single-thread performance for this simulation-heavy title.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured results is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 188.4 FPS
• Medium: 150.5 FPS
• High: 114.6 FPS
• Ultra: 106.4 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 151.4 FPS
• Medium: 119.7 FPS
• High: 87.3 FPS
• Ultra: 87.0 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 112.8 FPS
• Medium: 88.7 FPS
• High: 65.4 FPS
• Ultra: 62.6 FPS

From 1080p Low to 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops from 188.4 FPS to 62.6 FPS — a 125.8 FPS reduction. The largest single step occurs between 1080p and 1440p at Low settings (37.0 FPS drop), while the smallest step is between 1440p and 4K at Ultra (24.4 FPS drop). This pattern confirms that the GPU is the scaling bottleneck as resolution increases, with diminishing absolute FPS losses at higher settings because the baseline frame rates are already lower.

The 1080p results show a clear ordering: Low > Medium > High > Ultra, with gaps of 37.9, 35.9, and 8.2 FPS respectively. The small gap between High and Ultra at 1080p (8.2 FPS) suggests Ultra's extra effects carry a modest cost at this resolution. At 1440p, the gap between High and Ultra vanishes entirely (0.3 FPS), indicating that the Ultra preset's additional load is fully absorbed by the GPU at this resolution. At 4K, the High-to-Ultra gap widens slightly to 2.8 FPS, still minor.

These numbers provide a complete picture for anyone planning to build around this CPU-GPU pairing. The data shows a capable combination that handles 1080p and 1440p with ease, and remains playable at 4K with settings adjustments.