Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT produces a fascinating split personality. The data shows a system that is clearly capable of smooth flight at lower settings, but one that hits a hard wall when you push visual fidelity at higher resolutions. This combination ranks 980th out of 1795 tested combos in this specific game, placing it squarely in the middle of the pack—a position that reflects its strengths in raw frame rate at 1080p and its weaknesses when the GPU becomes the bottleneck at 4K. The following analysis breaks down exactly how each component contributes to the measured results.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen architecture, running on the AM4 socket. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, and it has a 65W TDP. For a flight simulator that relies heavily on single-threaded performance for physics and AI calculations, this CPU’s benchmark scores tell a clear story. In Cinebench R23, it scores 1,579 points in single-core and 11,186 points in multi-core. These numbers place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs tested, which is respectable for a 2018 release, but the single-core score is the more critical metric here.

Looking at its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 2600 is remarkably close to several modern parts. It sits just 0.4% behind the Intel Core i5-1345U and 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U in average benchmark score. It is actually 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i7-10700F. This tight grouping around a 19,500-19,700 average score indicates that the Ryzen 5 2600’s compute throughput is still competitive with much newer silicon in synthetic tests. However, in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, the boost clock of 3.90 GHz is the limiting factor. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 120.8 FPS, which suggests the CPU is feeding the GPU adequately at that low load. But as settings increase, the frame rate drops disproportionately, indicating that the CPU’s single-thread performance is holding back the system from reaching higher peaks.

The 16 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support are adequate for this workload, but the architecture lacks the higher IPC of newer Zen 3 or Raptor Lake parts. Benchmark results show a PassMark single-thread score of 2,239, which is below what modern gaming CPUs achieve. In practical terms, this means the Ryzen 5 2600 will keep the RX 6700 XT fed at 1080p with lower settings, but it cannot push frame rates higher when the GPU has more headroom. The data indicates that this CPU is the primary bottleneck at 1080p Ultra, where the system only manages 66.9 FPS—a figure that suggests the GPU is waiting on the CPU to deliver draw calls and terrain data.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: How does this CPU compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 has an average benchmark score of 19,616. It is 0.4% slower than the Intel Core i5-1345U (19,691) and 0.6% slower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (19,508). Conversely, it is 0.7% faster than the Intel Core i7-10700F (19,485). This places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the maximum measured FPS for this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 120.8 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 66.9 FPS, showing a significant performance cliff as settings increase.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor at 4K Ultra?

A: The data shows the system achieves only 38.5 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra. Given that the GPU’s performance percentile is 77 and its compute score is 13.21 TFLOPS, the RX 6700 XT is the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as the CPU has less relative impact when the GPU is fully saturated.

Q: What is the GPU’s VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. This is sufficient for high-resolution textures, but the bandwidth is moderate compared to higher-tier cards.

Q: How does the combo rank overall in this game?

A: This specific CPU+GPU combination ranks 980th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the ranking, reflecting its mixed performance across different settings and resolutions.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between 1080p and 4K at High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 High, the average FPS is 73.0. At 3840x2160 High, it drops to 41.7 FPS. This represents a 43% reduction in frame rate, illustrating the heavy load the higher resolution places on the GPU.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo scales across resolutions. Starting at 1920x1080 Low, the system produces 120.8 FPS, which is a strong result for a flight simulator. Moving to 2560x1440 Low, the FPS drops to 98.8, a 22% decrease. At 3840x2160 Low, the average is 70 FPS, which is a 42% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling pattern is typical for a GPU-bound scenario at lower settings, where the RX 6700 XT’s compute power is the limiting factor.

However, the story changes at higher settings. At 1080p High, the system hits 73 FPS; at 1440p High, it drops to 55.4 FPS; and at 4K High, it falls to 41.7 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings is 43%, which is nearly identical to the drop at Low settings. This suggests that the GPU is consistently the bottleneck across all settings, as the frame rate scales linearly with pixel count.

The Ultra settings tell a different tale. At 1080p Ultra, the system manages 66.9 FPS, but at 1440p Ultra it drops to 51.6 FPS, and at 4K Ultra it plunges to 38.5 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 23%, but from 1440p to 4K is 25%, indicating that the GPU is still the primary constraint. Yet, the absolute numbers at 1080p Ultra (66.9 FPS) are still lower than what a more powerful CPU could deliver, suggesting that the Ryzen 5 2600’s single-thread performance is capping the maximum frame rate even when the GPU is not fully loaded. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting component at 4K, but the CPU becomes a co-bottleneck at 1080p with high settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT ranks 980th out of 1,795 total tested combos. This places it in the 54.6th percentile of all combinations, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of the tested systems. This ranking is consistent with the components’ individual percentiles: the CPU is in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU is also in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. The combined rank is lower than either individual percentile, which indicates that the pairing does not synergize perfectly for this specific game.

The rank suggests that while each component is above average, the combination does not boost to the top tier because of the CPU’s age. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals—the Intel Core i5-1345U and AMD Ryzen 5 7530U—have similar synthetic scores, but they likely pair better with the GPU in real-world gaming due to newer architectures. The 980th rank out of 1,795 combos means there are 979 other configurations that deliver better performance in this simulator, which is a substantial number. This is largely due to the fact that Microsoft Flight Simulator is extremely demanding on both CPU and GPU, and the Ryzen 5 2600’s 3.90 GHz boost clock is not enough to push the RX 6700 XT to its full potential at lower resolutions.

However, the ranking is not a condemnation. The system still achieves playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with medium settings, and it is only at 4K Ultra that performance becomes marginal. The data shows that this combo is a balanced mid-range option, but it does not excel in any single area, which is why it sits in the middle of the pack.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process. It has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus and a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 2321 MHz, with a boost clock of 2581 MHz and a game clock of 2424 MHz. These clocks are high for the generation, and the GPU delivers 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 compute performance. In benchmark tests, it scores 19,786 in PassMark G3D, placing it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs.

The nearest rivals to the RX 6700 XT are interesting. It is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 in average score, and 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5000. It is also 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7950 and RX 480, which are much older cards. This indicates that the RX 6700 XT’s raw compute is still competitive with higher-tier cards, but its 12 GB VRAM and 384 GB/s bandwidth are the limiting factors in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can use large textures at 4K.

The GPU’s role in this combo is clear from the FPS data. At 4K Ultra, the system only manages 38.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This is directly attributable to the GPU’s memory bandwidth and compute limits. The 384 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient to feed the shading units at 4K with Ultra settings, causing the frame rate to drop. Conversely, at 1080p Low, the GPU is not the bottleneck, as evidenced by the 120.8 FPS result. The GPU’s 40 ray accelerators and 2560 shading units are more than enough for lower resolutions, but they struggle at 4K with maxed settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of this combo’s performance across all settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 120.8 FPS on Low, 93.6 FPS on Medium, 73.0 FPS on High, and 66.9 FPS on Ultra. This shows a clear progression where the GPU and CPU work in tandem, with the CPU capping the maximum at around 120 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 22.5%, from Medium to High is 22%, and from High to Ultra is 8.4%. The smaller drop from High to Ultra suggests that the CPU is starting to become the limiting factor at Ultra settings, as the GPU has more headroom.

At 2560x1440, the results are 98.8 FPS on Low, 74.8 FPS on Medium, 55.4 FPS on High, and 51.6 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 24.3%, from Medium to High is 25.9%, and from High to Ultra is 6.9%. The pattern is similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower, indicating that the GPU is now more saturated. The small drop from High to Ultra (6.9%) confirms that the CPU is still a bottleneck, as the GPU cannot fully utilize its power at these settings.

At 3840x2160, the system produces 70.0 FPS on Low, 57.7 FPS on Medium, 41.7 FPS on High, and 38.5 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 17.6%, from Medium to High is 27.7%, and from High to Ultra is 7.7%. At this resolution, the GPU is the clear bottleneck, as the frame rates drop below 60 FPS even at Medium settings. The 4K Low result of 70 FPS is the only playable option, while 4K High and Ultra are not recommended for smooth gameplay. The data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for Low or Medium settings if you want to maintain a playable frame rate.