Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only with clearly bounded expectations. The recorded data shows a 60 FPS experience at 1920x1080 up to Medium settings and at 2560x1440 on Low, while 3840x2160 falls short of the playable threshold at every preset. This pairing sits at rank 2951 of 3714 tested combinations in this title, which places it in the bottom fifth of the database for this particular game. The verdict is straightforward: playable at 1080p, conditionally playable at 1440p, and not recommended at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Ryzen 5 3600 occupies the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 17035, and its nearest rivals confirm how tight that cluster is. The Intel Core i7-1260P averages 17007, just 0.2 percent below the Ryzen, while the Intel Core i5-11400 averages 17067, 0.2 percent above it. The AMD EPYC 7573X (17070, 0.2 percent) and AMD EPYC 7742 (16998, 0.2 percent below) round out the group. Anyone running one of these four processors should expect effectively indistinguishable general compute behavior from the Ryzen 5 3600, and by extension similar performance ceilings in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with comparable graphics hardware.

On the graphics side, the RTX 2060 sits in the 58th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 15290. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, a dead-even 0 percent delta), the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, 0.1 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199, 0.6 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15171, 0.8 percent behind). Since these five GPUs sit within one percent of each other in aggregate score, a system built around the Radeon RX 7600 or the RTX 3050 OEM alongside a Ryzen 5 3600-class processor would deliver a near-identical Microsoft Flight Simulator experience to the combination measured here.

The CPU itself is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 2 (Matisse) design on TSMC's 7 nm node, with a 3.60 base and 4.20 boost clock, 32 MB of shared L3 cache, and PCIe 4.0 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The GPU is a Turing-based TU106 part with 1920 shading units, 30 RT cores, 240 tensor cores, 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. These are mid-tier components by the database's own percentile rankings, and that positioning carries directly into the frame rates below.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3714 hardware combinations tested in Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 2951st. That is a low placement, and it reflects the game's exceptional hardware demands rather than a weakness of these parts in general. Microsoft Flight Simulator released in August 2020, well after both components launched, and it remains one of the heaviest titles in the database. The CPU's 71st percentile ranking and the GPU's 58th percentile ranking are respectable in isolation, yet the combination still lands in the bottom tier for this specific simulation. Users comparing builds for this game should treat that rank as a warning: most tested configurations deliver a better experience, and the gap to the median combo is meaningful.

The split responsibility matters here. The Ryzen 5 3600 posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15045 and a single-core score of 2124, plus a Geekbench single-core result of 1536. Those are serviceable numbers, but flight simulation is famously sensitive to per-core throughput, and the single-thread figures are the weak link relative to newer rivals. The GPU contributes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1242 and a PassMark G3D score of 14111, solid mid-range results that still struggle against this title's rendering load at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured averages are 92.7 FPS on Low, 68.5 FPS on Medium, 55.7 FPS on High, and 51.2 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Medium drop is 24.2 FPS, by far the largest single-step loss at this resolution, while Medium-to-High costs another 12.8 FPS and High-to-Ultra only 4.5 FPS. That flattening at the top suggests the CPU or engine overhead begins to dominate once visual settings rise, capping the 1080p experience in the low fifties regardless of preset.

At 2560x1440, the averages fall to 72.5 FPS on Low, 58.5 FPS on Medium, 42.8 FPS on High, and 40.2 FPS on Ultra. The High-to-Ultra gap narrows again to just 2.6 FPS, repeating the pattern seen at 1080p. Medium lands 1.5 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold, so 1440p is a Low-settings resolution for this hardware.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 53.4 FPS on Low, 41 on Medium, 30.6 on High, and 31.9 on Ultra. Notably, Ultra actually edges out High by 1.3 FPS at 4K, an inversion that further confirms a bottleneck outside the GPU's raw raster workload at maximum settings. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded for these runs, so the averages are the authoritative figures.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Yes, at two of the three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, both Low (92.7 FPS) and Medium (68.5 FPS) clear the 60 FPS playable threshold, making Medium the best playable preset. At 2560x1440, only Low qualifies, at 72.5 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; even Low tops out at 53.4 FPS, nearly 7 frames short. The practical recommendation is a 1080p Medium setup for a smooth experience, 1440p Low if the higher pixel count matters more than visual fidelity, and avoidance of native 4K entirely on this hardware.

CPU and GPU Roles

The resolution scaling data tells a clear story about which component limits performance. From 1080p to 1440p on Low, the average drops from 92.7 to 72.5 FPS, a loss of 20.2 FPS. From 1440p to 4K on the same preset, it falls from 72.5 to 53.4 FPS, another 19.1 FPS. Those steep, roughly linear declines on the lightest preset show the GPU is the primary constraint when settings are low and resolution climbs: the RTX 2060's 6 GB framebuffer and 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth are being pushed hard by the pixel count.

At the top of the settings stack, the picture reverses. At 1080p, going from High to Ultra costs only 4.5 FPS, and at 1440p only 2.6 FPS, while at 4K Ultra actually gains 1.3 FPS over High. When raising image quality barely moves the frame rate, the GPU is no longer the limiting factor; the CPU or engine-side processing is. The Ryzen 5 3600's single-thread results, a PassMark single-thread score of 2562 and a Geekbench single-core score of 1536, are the likely ceiling here. In short: at 1080p and 1440p on demanding presets, the CPU matters more; at 4K or on Low settings, the GPU is the bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, delivering 68.5 FPS on average. High falls to 55.7 FPS and cannot be recommended for a fluid experience.

At 2560x1440, the answer is Low, at 72.5 FPS. Medium manages only 58.5 FPS, just under the threshold, so visual detail must be sacrificed to hold 60 FPS at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, there is no viable answer. The best result recorded is 53.4 FPS on Low, below the 60 FPS playable bar, so no preset qualifies and 4K should be off the table for this combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator.