Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT places at rank 1332 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This puts the pairing in the lower-middle tier of all recorded configurations, suggesting that while it can run the sim, it is far from the top of the leaderboard. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 19616 places it at the 77th percentile among all processors, which is respectable for a 2018 part, but the GPU’s 68th percentile standing among all graphics cards indicates that the graphics subsystem is the weaker link in this pairing.

What is striking here is the delta between the two components’ nearest rivals. The Ryzen 5 2600 trades blows with the Intel Core i5-1345U (deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (deltaPct 0.6), showing that its compute performance is still competitive with much newer mobile parts. Meanwhile, the RX 5700 XT sits within a hair of the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (deltaPct -0.1) and the Intel Arc A350M (deltaPct 0.3), which are both laptop-class GPUs. This suggests that the desktop GPU is punching at a level comparable to premium mobile solutions, yet it still lands in the lower half of the combo rankings because Flight Simulator is notoriously demanding.

The rank itself tells a story of balance: neither component is a bottleneck that completely cripples performance, but neither is strong enough to push the combo into the top echelons. With 1795 total combos, being at position 1332 means roughly 74% of tested systems outperform this one. That is a sobering statistic for a combination that was once considered a solid mid-range pairing, but the data reflects the heavy load that this game places on both CPU and GPU. The question becomes whether the bottleneck shifts between resolutions, which the FPS breakdown will clarify.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock runs at 1605 MHz, with a game clock of 1755 MHz and a boost clock of 1905 MHz. These figures are modest by today’s standards, but they were competitive at the card’s 2019 launch. The 7 nm Navi 10 chip packs 10,300 million transistors across a 251 mm² die, and the card outputs 9.754 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role is primarily to render the vast, detailed scenery and weather effects. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K with higher presets, the memory capacity may become a limiting factor. The data shows a clear pattern: at 3840x2160, the Ultra preset yields only 34.1 FPS, while Low jumps to 56.9 FPS. This 22.8 FPS swing between presets at 4K indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by the visual fidelity settings, not necessarily by the resolution itself.

The RX 5700 XT’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile, scores nearly identically (deltaPct -0.1), which is telling because that is a mobile workstation part. The fact that a desktop card with a 225 W TDP matches a laptop GPU in synthetic benchmarks suggests that the RX 5700 XT’s raw compute is not the issue; rather, its age and lack of modern features (no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores) may hamper it in a game that increasingly relies on advanced rendering techniques. The 64 ROPs and 160 TMUs are adequate for the card’s class, but Flight Simulator’s draw calls and texture streaming can expose their limits.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is stark and reveals where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 100.8 FPS, which drops to 77.1 FPS at 1440p Low (a 23.7 FPS decrease), and further to 56.9 FPS at 4K Low (a 20.2 FPS decrease from 1440p). This scaling pattern suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is keeping pace reasonably well, but the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor as pixel count rises.

At Ultra settings, the trend is even more pronounced. The 1080p Ultra score of 57.6 FPS falls to 43.3 FPS at 1440p (a 14.3 FPS drop) and then to 34.1 FPS at 4K (a 9.2 FPS drop from 1440p). The diminishing absolute drops at higher resolutions indicate that the GPU is nearing its performance ceiling—the card simply cannot push more frames regardless of the resolution increase. This is classic GPU-bound behavior, where the rendering workload outpaces the card’s shader and pixel throughput.

However, the 1080p to 1440p scaling at Medium settings tells a different story. The 77.9 FPS at 1080p drops to 64.5 FPS at 1440p, a 13.4 FPS reduction, which is proportionally smaller than the Low setting’s drop. This suggests that at Medium, the CPU begins to share the load more evenly, but the GPU still dominates. The fundamental takeaway is that this combo is GPU-limited across all resolutions, but the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads at 3.40 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost are sufficient to avoid becoming a severe bottleneck at lower settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. The Low preset hits 100.8 FPS, which is a smooth experience for any flight simulation. Medium drops to 77.9 FPS, still very playable, while High and Ultra produce nearly identical results at 57.7 and 57.6 FPS respectively. This clustering of High and Ultra at 1080p is noteworthy—it implies that the GPU is maxed out even at High, and Ultra adds little visual benefit for the performance cost.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers decline across the board. Low yields 77.1 FPS, which remains fluid, but Medium falls to 64.5 FPS. High manages 48 FPS, which is borderline for a sim where smooth panning is critical, and Ultra drops to 43.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 33.8 FPS, indicating that preset choice has a massive impact on playability.

At 3840x2160, the results are challenging. Low produces 56.9 FPS, which is acceptable, but Medium drops to 45.9 FPS, High to 32.1 FPS, and Ultra to 34.1 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra outperforms High at 4K by 2 FPS, which is likely within measurement variance but suggests that the differences between the top presets become negligible when the GPU is this strained. The 4K Low score of 56.9 FPS is the only 4K result that approaches a playable threshold, and even that is marginal for a simulator that benefits from high frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

For users targeting 1080p, the Medium preset at 77.9 FPS offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance. The jump from Medium to High costs 20.2 FPS (from 77.9 to 57.7), which is a significant loss for what is likely a modest visual improvement. Ultra provides no additional frames over High at 1080p, so it should be avoided entirely.

At 1440p, the Low preset at 77.1 FPS is the only setting that guarantees a fluid experience. Medium at 64.5 FPS is still acceptable for most users, but High at 48 FPS and Ultra at 43.3 FPS will introduce noticeable stutter during complex scenery loads. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low or Medium, depending on their tolerance for visual compromises.

For 4K, the situation is dire. The Low preset at 56.9 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but even this is borderline. Medium at 45.9 FPS is too choppy for a smooth experience, and High/Ultra at 32-34 FPS are effectively slideshows for a sim that requires precise control. The recommendation is clear: if 4K is a must, use Low settings and accept the visual downgrade, or consider dropping to 1440p for a better experience.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: Only at 1080p with Low settings (100.8 FPS) or Medium settings (77.9 FPS). At 1440p, Low hits 77.1 FPS, but Medium falls to 64.5 FPS. No 4K preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Which is the bottleneck, CPU or GPU?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck across all resolutions. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads at up to 3.90 GHz boost are sufficient for the game’s physics and AI, but the RX 5700 XT’s 9.754 TFLOPS and 8 GB VRAM limit frame rates, especially at higher presets.

Q: How does the RX 5700 XT compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The GPU’s average benchmark score of 24731 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24763, deltaPct -0.1) and the Intel Arc A350M (24647, deltaPct 0.3). This suggests similar performance in synthetic tests, but real-world Flight Simulator results may vary due to driver optimizations.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 2600 holding back the GPU?

A: The CPU’s multithread score of 13160 in PassMark and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11186 indicate it is not a severe bottleneck. The 1080p Low result of 100.8 FPS shows the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at lower settings, but at higher presets the GPU’s limits are reached first.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: 1080p is the sweet spot, with Medium settings at 77.9 FPS offering the best combination of quality and smoothness. 1440p is playable only at Low or Medium, while 4K should be avoided except at Low settings (56.9 FPS).

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM cause issues at 4K?

A: The 8 GB GDDR6 memory is likely a contributing factor to the poor 4K performance. At Ultra settings, the 34.1 FPS result suggests the GPU is both compute-bound and possibly memory-limited, as the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth may struggle with high-resolution textures.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen+ architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz boosts to 3.90 GHz, and it has a total of 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU’s memory bandwidth is rated at 46.9 GB/s with dual-channel DDR4 support.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation logic, including flight physics, weather calculations, and AI traffic. The benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this combo. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 100.8 FPS, which is a strong indicator that the 2600 can keep up with the GPU at lower graphical loads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11186 and single-core score of 1579 are modest by current standards, but they are sufficient for this game’s single-threaded flight model.

The CPU’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1345U (avgScore 19691, deltaPct -0.4) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (avgScore 19508, deltaPct 0.6), which are both newer mobile parts with similar average scores. This indicates that the 2600’s desktop performance is still respectable, but it lacks the high single-thread boost clocks that modern Flight Simulator builds prefer. The 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests that while the 2600 is not a weak link, it also does not boost the combo’s standing.

The real question is whether a stronger CPU would unlock more FPS from the RX 5700 XT. The data hints that at 1080p Low, the CPU might be near its limit, but at higher presets the GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The 12 threads help with multi-threaded tasks like terrain streaming, but the 3.90 GHz boost clock may struggle with the game’s single-threaded rendering thread. Overall, the 2600 is a competent partner for the RX 5700 XT in this title, but it does not push the combo beyond its mid-range classification.