Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 ranks 809th out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the top 21.8% of all recorded configurations, a strong position for a flight simulator that demands both substantial CPU throughput and GPU rasterization power. The ranking reflects the balance between a six-core, twelve-thread Zen 2 processor from 2019 and a current-generation Blackwell GPU.

The CPU itself sits at the 71st percentile among all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17035. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the Intel Core i7-1260P at 17007 (0.2% behind), the Intel Core i5-11400 at 17067 (0.2% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7573X at 17070 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 7742 at 16998 (0.2% behind). These margins are negligible, meaning the Ryzen 5 3600 delivers compute performance effectively identical to a broad range of desktop and mobile parts from multiple generations.

The RTX 5070, meanwhile, achieves an 82nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40377. Its nearest rivals in aggregate scoring are the AMD Radeon Pro 580 at 40318 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 at 40063 (0.8% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 at 40870 (1.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39568 (2.0% behind). These deltas are small enough that real-world gaming performance would be nearly indistinguishable across these cards in most titles.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the combination of a mid-range 2019 CPU with a high-end 2025 GPU produces a system that comfortably clears the 60 FPS playability threshold at every tested resolution, with the only exception being Ultra settings at 4K. The data indicates that this pairing is well-suited to the game's demanding rendering workload, particularly at 1440p and 1080p where the headroom above 60 FPS is substantial.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 101.1 FPS. This is the highest quality setting available in the test suite, and the system has more than 40 FPS of headroom above the playability threshold. Lower presets naturally produce higher frame rates, with Medium at 126.4 FPS, High at 103.2 FPS, and Low at 138 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Ultra remains playable with an average of 81.8 FPS, again clearing the 60 FPS bar by a comfortable margin. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 19 FPS on the Ultra preset, but the result still provides smooth performance for a flight simulator where consistent frame pacing matters more than competitive response times. Medium runs at 109.7 FPS, High at 81.4 FPS, and Low at 125.2 FPS at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. Ultra drops to 59.7 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold, making it technically unplayable by the database's standard. The best playable preset at 4K is High, which averages 62.5 FPS. This is a narrow margin above the threshold, so users prioritizing absolute smoothness might prefer Medium at 83.8 FPS, but High does meet the stated playability criterion. Low runs at 100.7 FPS at 4K.

The verdict data confirms these findings: at 4K, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium, with High being the best choice at 62.5 FPS average. At 1440p and 1080p, all four presets are playable, with Ultra being the recommended maximum at 81.8 FPS and 101.1 FPS respectively.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling patterns across resolutions reveal how the workload distributes between the Ryzen 5 3600 and the RTX 5070. At 1080p, the CPU has more influence relative to the GPU because the graphics card is not fully saturated at lower pixel counts. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 36.9 FPS (138 down to 101.1), which shows that the GPU still has meaningful headroom even at the highest settings, but the CPU is providing enough single-thread performance to keep the simulation logic and rendering pipeline fed.

Moving to 1440p, the gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 43.4 FPS (125.2 down to 81.8). The overall frame rates drop by roughly 10% across all presets compared to 1080p, which is consistent with a GPU-bound workload where the RTX 5070's 12 GB of GDDR7 memory and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth are being utilized more heavily. The Ryzen 5 3600's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 12 threads appear sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU at this resolution.

At 4K, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. Ultra falls to 59.7 FPS, just below the playability threshold, while High maintains 62.5 FPS. The drop from 1440p Ultra (81.8 FPS) to 4K Ultra (59.7 FPS) represents a 27% reduction, and the difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 41 FPS (100.7 down to 59.7). This pattern indicates that the RTX 5070 is the limiting factor at 4K, particularly on the Ultra preset where the 48 RT cores and 80 ROPs are handling the full rendering load without CPU interference.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing 1080p Low to 4K Low: 138 FPS versus 100.7 FPS. The 37.3 FPS drop at the lowest settings is almost entirely due to the increased pixel count, not CPU limitations, because the Ryzen 5 3600's single-thread score of 696 in 3DMark and 2124 in Cinebench R23 are adequate for the game's simulation demands. The data suggests that users with this combo should prioritize GPU settings at 4K, while at 1080p and 1440p they have flexibility to push both CPU and GPU intensive options.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i7-1260P, Intel Core i5-11400, AMD EPYC 7573X, and AMD EPYC 7742 all produce average scores within 0.2% of the Ryzen 5 3600. In practical terms, any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same RTX 5070. The i5-11400 is a particularly relevant comparison for desktop users, as it offers comparable multi-threaded performance (17067 versus 17035) and would likely show less than 1 FPS difference in game.

For the GPU, the nearest scoring rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (0.1% behind), AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (0.8% behind), AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (1.2% ahead), and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (2.0% behind). These are workstation and mobile parts rather than direct desktop gaming equivalents, but the aggregate scores suggest that users with these GPUs could expect similar performance in flight simulation workloads. The RTX A500 Mobile's 2.0% deficit translates to roughly 1-2 FPS in the measured scenarios, an imperceptible difference in a game where frame pacing consistency matters more than raw peak rates.

It is importantly the RTX 5070's nearest rivals are not typical gaming GPUs, which reflects the wide performance spread in the database's GPU rankings. The 82nd percentile placement means this card outperforms the vast majority of recorded GPUs, and the specific rivals listed are simply the closest in aggregate benchmark scoring rather than direct market competitors.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range produces the following average frame rates: Low runs at 138 FPS, Medium at 126.4 FPS, High at 103.2 FPS, and Ultra at 101.1 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 26.7% reduction in frame rate, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (23.2 FPS).

At 2560x1440, Low averages 125.2 FPS, Medium 109.7 FPS, High 81.4 FPS, and Ultra 81.8 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra slightly outperforms High at this resolution (81.8 versus 81.4), a negligible difference that falls within measurement variance. The gap between Medium and High is 28.3 FPS, the largest step in the entire dataset, indicating that the High preset at 1440p introduces a significant rendering cost.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 100.7 FPS, Medium 83.8 FPS, High 62.5 FPS, and Ultra 59.7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 2.8 FPS, but it is enough to push Ultra below the 60 FPS threshold. The cumulative drop from Low to Ultra at 4K is 41 FPS, representing a 40.7% reduction in performance across the settings range.

The minimum and maximum FPS values were not recorded for any configuration, so the analysis relies on average frame rates. For a flight simulator, average FPS is a meaningful metric because the gameplay involves sustained views of terrain and aircraft rather than rapid scene changes, but users sensitive to stutter should note that averages above 60 do not guarantee consistent frame pacing in dense urban areas or complex weather scenarios.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates across most resolution and settings combinations. At 1920x1080, every preset from Low to Ultra exceeds 60 FPS, with Ultra delivering 101.1 FPS average. At 2560x1440, all four presets also clear the threshold, with Ultra at 81.8 FPS providing the best visual quality while maintaining smooth performance. At 3840x2160, the system handles Low (100.7 FPS), Medium (83.8 FPS), and High (62.5 FPS) above 60 FPS, but Ultra falls just short at 59.7 FPS.

The practical takeaway is that users with a 4K display should use the High preset to stay above the playability threshold, while those on 1440p or 1080p monitors can enable Ultra without concern. The Ryzen 5 3600's 71st percentile CPU ranking and the RTX 5070's 82nd percentile GPU ranking combine to form a configuration that is well-matched for this game's demanding simulation workload.

The narrow miss at 4K Ultra (59.7 FPS versus the 60 FPS threshold) is worth noting, but the margin is so small that in-game variations in scene complexity could push it above or below the line depending on the specific flight scenario. For users who prioritize maximum visual fidelity at 4K, dropping to High costs only 2.8 FPS on average but guarantees compliance with the 60 FPS standard. Overall, this combo is a strong choice for Microsoft Flight Simulator, offering playable performance at every resolution tested and substantial headroom at 1080p and 1440p.