Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p with maximum settings?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 reaches an average of 68.5 FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best setting for 4K gameplay?

A: At 3840x2160, only Low settings maintain playable performance. The average FPS at Low is 68.4, while Medium drops to 53.1, High falls to 42.7, and Ultra bottoms out at 37.0.

Q: How does this combo rank among tested systems for this game?

A: The database places this combination at rank 2040 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning it sits in the upper-middle portion of all recorded configurations.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1440p?

A: The data indicates the GPU becomes the primary constraint as resolution increases. At 2560x1440, the gap between Medium (73.9 FPS) and High (54.9 FPS) is substantial, suggesting the graphics card struggles with the higher preset load rather than the processor.

Q: What rival components perform closest to this CPU and GPU?

A: For the CPU, the Intel Core i7-1260P and AMD EPYC 7742 are within 0.2% of the Ryzen 5 3600's average score. For the GPU, the AMD Radeon HD 7790 is within 0.2% of the RTX 4060's average benchmark score.

Q: Does this system handle 1080p Medium settings comfortably?

A: Yes, with significant headroom. The measured average at 1920x1080 Medium is 91.3 FPS, which is more than 50% above the 60 FPS threshold, leaving ample margin for demanding scenes.

How This Combo Ranks

The database records this CPU and GPU pairing at rank 2040 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 55th percentile of all recorded systems, meaning a slight majority of tested configurations perform better, but a large minority perform worse. The ranking reflects a balanced mid-range pairing rather than a high-end enthusiast setup.

Context matters here. Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the database shows that most systems fail to maintain 60 FPS at higher resolutions and presets. This combo's ability to clear 60 FPS at 1080p Ultra and 1440p Medium demonstrates that it sits above the typical playable threshold for this specific game. The rank of 2040 should be interpreted with the game's notorious hardware appetite in mind; a mid-pack rank in this title often translates to a top-tier rank in less demanding games.

The CPU alone holds a 71st percentile position among all processors in the database, while the GPU sits at the 61st percentile among all graphics cards. The in-game result, however, shows a more modest relative standing because Flight Simulator's rendering load stresses both components in ways that synthetic benchmarks do not fully capture. The combo rank of 2040 reflects the real-world interaction between these two parts under this specific workload.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with a recorded average of 68.5 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available and it still clears the playable threshold by a comfortable 8.5 FPS margin. The data shows a clear progression: Low runs at 117.4 FPS, Medium at 91.3 FPS, and High at 70.2 FPS, all above 60, with Ultra being the ceiling that remains playable.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is Medium, delivering an average of 73.9 FPS. High settings fall to 54.9 FPS, which does not meet the 60 FPS threshold, while Ultra drops further to 55.5 FPS. Low settings run at 96.8 FPS but sacrifice too much visual quality when Medium is still comfortably playable. The 1440p Medium result offers a strong balance between fidelity and performance.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings achieve playable performance, with an average of 68.4 FPS. Medium drops to 53.1 FPS, High to 42.7 FPS, and Ultra to 37.0 FPS. The 4K Low result is the only option that clears the threshold, and it does so with a 8.4 FPS margin. This resolution demands significant compromises from this hardware combination.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i7-1260P, the AMD EPYC 7742, and the Intel Core i5-11400, all within 0.2% of the Ryzen 5 3600's average benchmark score. The i7-1260P and EPYC 7742 score 0.2% higher, while the i5-11400 and EPYC 7573X score 0.2% lower. In practice, a system swapping the Ryzen 5 3600 for any of these processors would see nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the performance difference falls well below measurable in-game variance.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon HD 7790 is the closest match at 0.2% higher average score, followed by the AMD Radeon 780M at 0.3% lower, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 0.7% lower. These deltas are small enough that any of these graphics cards would produce essentially the same FPS in this game when paired with the same CPU. The RTX 4060 also sits near the AMD Radeon 780M, an integrated GPU found in some laptop and mini-PC designs, which is notable given the 4060's discrete form factor.

Systems built around these rival components would behave almost identically to the Ryzen 5 3600 and RTX 4060 combination in Flight Simulator. Users upgrading from any of these near-equivalent parts should not expect a meaningful change in performance for this specific title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data reveals how the balance of responsibility shifts across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the CPU and GPU share the load more evenly. The spread from Low (117.4 FPS) to Ultra (68.5 FPS) shows that both components have headroom at lower presets, and the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings rise. At Low settings, the frame rate is high enough to suggest the CPU is driving the simulation logic, while at Ultra, the GPU's rendering load brings performance down to 68.5 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU's role becomes more dominant. The drop from Low (96.8 FPS) to Medium (73.9 FPS) is 22.9 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High (54.9 FPS) is 19.0 FPS. This steep falloff at higher presets indicates that pixel throughput and shading complexity, both GPU responsibilities, are the primary bottlenecks. The CPU still handles the simulation and physics layers, but the graphics card determines whether the frame rate stays above 60.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. The difference between Low (68.4 FPS) and Medium (53.1 FPS) is 15.3 FPS, and Ultra falls to 37.0 FPS, less than half the Low result. The 4K resolution quadruples the pixel count compared to 1080p, and the RTX 4060's 8 GB memory buffer and 128-bit bus become strained. The CPU's workload scales less with resolution, so its contribution remains relatively constant while the GPU's load increases dramatically.

The pattern across resolutions is consistent: the CPU determines the baseline simulation speed, but the GPU dictates how much visual quality can be layered on top. At 1080p, users can max out settings because the GPU has enough bandwidth to handle the load. At 1440p, Medium is the ceiling. At 4K, only Low is viable. This scaling behavior points to the GPU as the component users should upgrade first if they want higher quality at higher resolutions.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable envelope depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at every preset, including Ultra at 68.5 FPS. This is the resolution where the hardware shows its full capability, delivering the best balance of fidelity and performance.

At 2560x1440, the system remains playable at Low (96.8 FPS) and Medium (73.9 FPS), but High and Ultra fall short of the 60 FPS threshold. Users with 1440p monitors should choose Medium settings for the best experience, as it provides a solid frame rate with noticeably better visuals than Low.

At 3840x2160, only Low settings achieve playable performance at 68.4 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all drop below 60, with Ultra bottoming out at 37.0 FPS. The 4K experience is functional but visually compromised, requiring users to sacrifice most graphical enhancements to maintain smooth gameplay.

The verdict is clear: this is a capable 1080p system for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a solid 1440p system with settings adjusted to Medium, and a limited 4K system that only works on Low. The data shows no configuration that fails entirely, but the 4K and high-preset 1440p results will disappoint users seeking maximum visual quality at those resolutions. For the majority of players targeting 1080p, this combination delivers the full experience without compromise.