Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 combination delivers a workable, if not spectacular, experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a pairing where the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU's six cores and twelve threads provide a solid foundation for the simulator's complex flight models and world streaming. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and settings, interpreting what the numbers mean for the overall system balance.

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture, running on the AMD Socket AM4 platform. Its base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, and it accesses a shared 32 MB L3 cache. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, this processor configuration is responsible for maintaining the simulation's core logic, including physics calculations and the streaming of terrain data. The benchmark results indicate that this CPU is not the limiting factor in most tested scenarios, as the frame rates scale significantly with graphical settings and resolution, pointing to the GPU as the primary constraint.

The Ryzen 5 3600’s performance profile, as evidenced by its synthetic benchmarks, shows a strong multi-threaded capability. For instance, it scores 15,045 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6,318 points in Cinebench R20 multi-core. In single-threaded tasks, it scores 2,124 points in Cinebench R23 and 892 points in Cinebench R20. These scores suggest that the CPU can handle the game's heavy single-threaded tasks, such as the main flight loop, while also providing enough multi-threaded headroom for background processes. The processor's 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,035, places it in a solid mid-range position.

Comparing it to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 3600 is effectively a performance peer. It trails the Intel Core i5-11400 by a mere 0.2% in average score and is 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7573X. Similarly, it leads the Intel Core i7-1260P by 0.2% and the AMD EPYC 7742 by 0.2%. These negligible deltas mean that in CPU-bound scenarios, the experience would be nearly identical to these other processors. However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 92 FPS, which is a high frame rate that suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately. The data does not show a scenario where the CPU is holding back performance to an unplayable degree, even at lower resolutions where the GPU load is reduced.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The GPU has a base clock of 1626 MHz, a game clock of 2044 MHz, and a boost clock of 2491 MHz. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role is to render the highly detailed scenery, aircraft models, and lighting effects. The 8 GB VRAM is a critical factor here, as the game's high-resolution textures can be demanding.

The measured frame rates show that the RX 6600 is the bottleneck when settings are increased. For example, at 1080p, the average FPS drops from 92 on Low to 54 on High, and further to 51 on Ultra. This steep decline indicates that the GPU's compute and memory resources are being saturated by the increased graphical load. The GPU's 63rd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,036, confirms its mid-range status. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, matches its score exactly with a 0% delta, while the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile is only 0.1% slower.

The RX 6600’s memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s and 8 GB VRAM are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the data shows a clear limitation at 4K. At 3840x2160, the average FPS on High settings is just 32, and on Ultra it drops to 31. These numbers are below the 60 FPS target that many consider playable, indicating that the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel count and texture sizes at this resolution. The GPU's performance is more respectable at lower resolutions, but the trend is clear: this is a card best suited for 1080p and light 1440p gaming in this specific simulator.

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 the system scales with resolution. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 92 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 74 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls further to 55 FPS. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound system, where increasing the resolution increases the pixel fill rate demand on the graphics card.

The trend is more pronounced at higher settings. For instance, at High settings, the average FPS goes from 54 at 1080p to 43 at 1440p, and then to 32 at 4K. This represents a 40.7% drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings, which is a significant reduction. Similarly, at Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 51 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p, and finally to 31 at 4K. The data shows that the RX 6600 cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K, as even the Low preset only yields 55 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

This scaling behavior confirms that the GPU is the limiting component in this configuration. The CPU, with its robust multi-threaded performance, is able to keep up with the GPU's output at lower resolutions, but as the resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows exponentially. The fact that the FPS drops by roughly 40% or more from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the RX 6600's rendering capabilities are the primary constraint. The data does not suggest that the Ryzen 5 3600 is causing a bottleneck, as the FPS is directly correlated with the GPU load.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the most viable resolution. The system achieves 92 FPS on Low, 72 FPS on Medium, and 54 FPS on High, which are all playable. At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop to 74 FPS on Low, but High settings only yield 43 FPS, which is less fluid.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No, the data shows that 4K is not practical. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 55 on Low settings, which drops to 32 on High and 31 on Ultra. These frame rates are below the 60 FPS target for a smooth experience.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 or the AMD Radeon RX 6600 the bottleneck?

A: The data indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions and settings. The FPS scales significantly with resolution changes, which is a hallmark of GPU limitation. The CPU's performance is sufficient to avoid being the primary constraint.

Q: How does the RX 6600 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19,036, which is exactly matched by the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 with a 0% delta. It is 0.1% slower than the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile and 0.3% slower than the Tesla K20m, while being 0.4% faster than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation.

Q: What is the difference in performance between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate on Low settings is 92 FPS. On Ultra settings, the average drops to 51 FPS. This is a 44.6% reduction in performance, showing a significant impact from the graphical preset.

Q: Does the CPU have enough single-threaded performance for this game?

A: The Ryzen 5 3600 scores 2,124 points in Cinebench R23 single-core and 892 points in Cinebench R20 single-core. These scores, combined with the high FPS at 1080p Low, suggest that the CPU has adequate single-threaded performance for the simulation's core logic.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 ranks 2870 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 23rd percentile of all tested systems, meaning that a significant majority of hardware combinations perform better. This ranking is a reflection of the GPU's mid-range capabilities and its inability to deliver high frame rates at 4K.

The ranking is a holistic measure of the system's performance across all tested scenarios. Given that the RX 6600 sits at the 63rd percentile among GPUs and the Ryzen 5 3600 at the 71st percentile among CPUs, the combo's rank is slightly lower than what each component's individual percentile might suggest. This is likely due to the fact that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses the GPU heavily, and the RX 6600's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus put it at a disadvantage in this specific game. The rank indicates that while the system is functional, it is not a high-performance pairing for this simulator, and users should temper their expectations, particularly for high-resolution or high-detail play.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is a detailed breakdown of the measured average frame rates, with minimum and maximum values where available, for each resolution and settings preset.

1920x1080 (Full HD)

• Low: Average 92 FPS.
• Medium: Average 72 FPS, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS.
• High: Average 54 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 51 FPS.

2560x1440 (Quad HD)

• Low: Average 74 FPS.
• Medium: Average 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS.
• High: Average 43 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 41 FPS.

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: Average 55 FPS.
• Medium: Average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS.
• High: Average 32 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 31 FPS.

The data shows a consistent pattern: for each settings preset, the FPS decreases by roughly 20-25% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and by another 25-30% when moving from 1440p to 4K. The only exception is the Low preset, where the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.6%, and the drop from 1440p to 4K is 25.7%. The Medium preset has the most complete data, showing that the frame time variance increases with resolution, as evidenced by the wider gap between minimum and maximum FPS at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the optimal experience for this hardware combination is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution. At this resolution, the system can maintain an average frame rate above 60 FPS on the Medium preset, which provides a good balance between visual quality and performance. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 72 FPS, which is fluid and responsive for a flight simulator.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the High preset at 1080p is a viable option, delivering an average of 54 FPS. This is still playable, though not as smooth as Medium. The Ultra preset at 1080p, with an average of 51 FPS, offers marginal visual improvements over High but at a significant performance cost, and is not recommended given the small FPS difference.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset provides an average of 58 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS target. This is a reasonable compromise for users with 1440p monitors, but they should be prepared for occasional frame rate dips, as the minimum FPS is 49. The High preset at 1440p is less advisable, as the 43 FPS average is noticeably less smooth.

The 4K resolution is not recommended for this combo. Even the Low preset at 4K only achieves 55 FPS, and the Medium preset drops to 43 FPS. The visual clarity of 4K does not compensate for the significant reduction in frame rate, which is critical for a simulator that requires smooth camera movements and precise control. The data suggests that staying at 1080p with Medium or High settings offers the best overall experience, ensuring a stable and responsive simulation environment.