Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured data defines a clear playability threshold at 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches that mark. The best recorded result is 53.7 FPS on Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS target. High delivers 33.6 FPS, Medium 42.7 FPS, and Ultra 31.3 FPS. None of these are smooth enough for a flight sim where constant camera movement and dense terrain detail demand stable frame pacing.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves. Low settings produce 71.5 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with a comfortable margin. Medium drops to 57 FPS, just under the line, while High sits at 45.3 FPS and Ultra at 39.3 FPS. The verdict from the database is clear: Low is the best playable preset at this resolution. It is the only one that maintains 60 FPS or better, and pushing to Medium sacrifices fluency without a proportional visual gain for many users.

At 1920x1080, there are two playable options. Low runs at 91.6 FPS, and Medium runs at 71.5 FPS. Both clear the 60 FPS threshold. The database identifies Medium as the best settings preset at this resolution because it offers the highest quality that still stays above 60 FPS. High drops to 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 53.5 FPS, both below the target. So for 1080p owners, Medium is the sweet spot: it keeps frame rates smooth while providing noticeably better textures and draw distances than Low.

CPU and GPU Roles

This combination of an AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 shows a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions, while the CPU becomes more relevant at lower settings and lower resolutions. The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are strong, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12735 and a single-core score of 1852. The GPU, a Turing-based RTX 2060 with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 1920 shading units, is a mid-range part from 2019.

Look at the scaling from 1920x1080 Low to 3840x2160 Low. At 1080p Low, the system produces 91.6 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 71.5 FPS, a reduction of about 22%. At 4K Low, it falls to 53.7 FPS, another 25% drop. This steep decline as resolution increases is typical of a GPU-bound scenario. The RTX 2060's 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput simply cannot feed enough pixels at 4K, regardless of how capable the CPU is.

Conversely, look at the same resolution across settings. At 1920x1080, going from Low to Ultra changes the average FPS from 91.6 to 53.5, a 42% reduction. At 2560x1440, Low to Ultra goes from 71.5 to 39.3, a 45% reduction. At 3840x2160, Low to Ultra goes from 53.7 to 31.3, a 42% reduction. The consistency of this percentage drop across resolutions indicates that the GPU is handling the extra shader work uniformly; the CPU is not becoming a bottleneck at any point. If the CPU were limiting, you would expect the FPS gap between Low and Ultra to shrink at higher resolutions, because the GPU would already be saturated. That does not happen here.

The CPU's role becomes clearer when comparing the 1080p Medium result (71.5 FPS) to the 1440p Low result (71.5 FPS). Identical FPS at different resolutions and settings suggests that at these points, the system is hitting a combined ceiling, likely a mix of CPU draw-call overhead and GPU fill-rate limits. The Ryzen 5 7600's single-thread performance is excellent for its class, but Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy simulation and scenery loading, which taxes even strong CPUs. Still, the data shows that the GPU is the primary limiter for this pairing, especially beyond 1080p Medium or 1440p Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset from our measurements is as follows.

At 3840x2160, the system runs at 53.7 FPS on Low, 42.7 FPS on Medium, 33.6 FPS on High, and 31.3 FPS on Ultra. No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded for these runs, only averages. The spread from Low to Ultra is 22.4 FPS, which is a narrow range compared to lower resolutions. This indicates that the GPU is saturated; even dropping to Low settings cannot double the frame rate, because the pixel fill and memory bandwidth at 4K are the hard limits.

At 2560x1440, the results are 71.5 FPS on Low, 57 FPS on Medium, 45.3 FPS on High, and 39.3 FPS on Ultra. The jump from Medium to High is 11.7 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 6 FPS. The diminishing returns are evident: the difference between Low and Medium is 14.5 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 6 FPS. This means that if a user is chasing higher fidelity, the step from Medium to High costs significantly more performance than the step from High to Ultra, but the visual improvement is often similar.

At 1920x1080, the results are 91.6 FPS on Low, 71.5 FPS on Medium, 52 FPS on High, and 53.5 FPS on Ultra. The anomaly here is that Ultra actually runs slightly faster than High. This is within measurement variance, but it also suggests that the High preset may include a specific setting (such as a shadow or reflection option) that is disproportionately heavy, while Ultra rebalances or disables something that reduces the load. Regardless, both High and Ultra are below the 60 FPS threshold, so neither is recommended for smooth play.

Comparing the same settings across resolutions, the scaling is mostly linear. Low at 1080p is 91.6 FPS, at 1440p it is 71.5 FPS, and at 4K it is 53.7 FPS. Medium at 1080p is 71.5 FPS, at 1440p it is 57 FPS, and at 4K it is 42.7 FPS. High at 1080p is 52 FPS, at 1440p it is 45.3 FPS, and at 4K it is 33.6 FPS. Ultra at 1080p is 53.5 FPS, at 1440p it is 39.3 FPS, and at 4K it is 31.3 FPS. The resolution penalty is relatively consistent, which again points to GPU-bound behavior.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Ryzen 5 7600 has an average benchmark score of 26324. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within a very tight band. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores 26274, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 26402, which is 0.3% higher. The Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 26212, which is 0.4% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 8540U scores 26187, which is 0.5% lower. In practical terms, these are all functionally identical for gaming. If a user already has any of these CPUs, swapping to the Ryzen 5 7600 would produce no measurable difference in Microsoft Flight Simulator frame rates, because the GPU is the bottleneck.

For the GPU, the RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290. Its nearest rivals are also extremely close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 scores 15283, a 0% difference. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, a 0.1% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, a 0.6% difference. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, a 0.8% difference. This is an unusual grouping, as the GTX 580 is a much older card, but the aggregate benchmark score puts them in the same tier. For this game specifically, the RTX 2060's 6 GB VRAM and modern API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4) may give it an edge over the GTX 580 in real-world scenarios, but the measured FPS data for those rivals is not available in this database. What is clear is that a user considering an upgrade from any of these GPUs to the RTX 2060 should not expect a large jump in raw compute; the differences are under 1%.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower half of all systems in the database, which aligns with the measured FPS results. The RTX 2060 is an older mid-range GPU, and the Ryzen 5 7600 is a strong modern CPU, but the pairing is held back by the graphics card. The percentile data supports this: the CPU sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 58th percentile among all GPUs. The combination rank of 2912 out of 3714 means that roughly 78% of tested systems outperform this one in this game.

The rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capability, which is clearly in the top quarter of all processors. It is a reflection of the GPU's limitations. Many combos in the database pair higher-end GPUs with equal or weaker CPUs and still achieve better FPS in this title. Conversely, a combo with a weaker CPU but a stronger GPU would likely rank higher. For a user with this exact hardware, the takeaway is that the system is functional but not competitive with modern mid-range or high-end builds. It can handle the game at modest settings, but it will not shine in demanding scenarios like dense city overflights or heavy weather.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The answer depends entirely on resolution and settings. At 3840x2160, no. The best case is 53.7 FPS on Low, which is below the 60 FPS target. Even at Low, the experience will have noticeable stutter in busy areas, and the visual quality is so reduced that 4K is not worth the performance hit. The database verdict lists no playable settings at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, yes, but only on Low. The system delivers 71.5 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 57 FPS, which is close but not quite smooth enough for a flight sim where constant panning and zooming are common. If a user is willing to accept occasional dips below 60 FPS, Medium might be tolerable, but the database marks Low as the only playable preset. The visual difference between Low and Medium at 1440p is noticeable, but the frame rate stability is more important for this genre.

At 1920x1080, yes, on Low and Medium. Low runs at 91.6 FPS, which is excellent and leaves headroom for recording or streaming. Medium runs at 71.5 FPS, which is still above the threshold and offers a better balance of quality and performance. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS, so they are not recommended. For most users with a 1080p monitor, Medium is the right choice. It provides a detailed world, readable cockpit instruments, and smooth camera movement.

In summary, this hardware combination is a capable 1080p machine for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a marginal 1440p machine that requires Low settings, and not viable at 4K. The biggest limiting factor is the RTX 2060's 6 GB VRAM and overall throughput. The Ryzen 5 7600 is more than sufficient for this game; upgrading the GPU to a card with higher benchmark scores would be the logical path to higher resolutions and presets. At 1080p Medium, the system delivers a playable experience, and that is the practical ceiling for this pairing.