Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

Microsoft Flight Simulator is notoriously demanding, and the measured data for this AMD Ryzen 5 3600 + AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination demonstrates a steep performance curve as resolution increases. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the system produces 67 FPS on average. Moving to 1440p, that figure drops to 52.4 FPS, a reduction of roughly 22%. The leap to 4K is more punishing: Ultra settings yield just 36.7 FPS at 3840x2160, which is about 45% below the 1080p result.

The scaling pattern across all settings tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, the frame rate falls from 119.3 FPS at 1080p to 95 FPS at 1440p, then to 68.3 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 20.4%, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 28.1%. This increasingly steep decline indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary limiting component as pixel count rises.

For High settings, the pattern is consistent: 69.3 FPS at 1080p, 55.5 FPS at 1440p, and 40.1 FPS at 4K. The 4K figure represents only 57.9% of the 1080p performance. This is a substantial penalty, but it is not unexpected for a flight simulator that renders vast terrain and detailed aircraft models. The data suggests that the Radeon RX 6700 XT, with its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, handles the geometry and texture workloads reasonably well, but the sheer pixel throughput at 4K overwhelms its 2560 shading units.

Interestingly, the gap between Medium and High settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 22.6 FPS (91.9 vs 69.3). At 1440p, it is 20.1 FPS (75.6 vs 55.5). At 4K, it is 13 FPS (53.1 vs 40.1). This convergence implies that at lower resolutions, the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, making settings changes more impactful. At 4K, the GPU is so saturated that raising settings from Medium to High costs relatively less in absolute terms, though the percentage loss remains significant.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy of playable experiences. For users targeting smooth, consistent frame rates, the Low preset at 1080p delivers 119.3 FPS, which is more than sufficient for a simulator where fluid camera movement and terrain streaming matter more than competitive twitch responses. However, Low settings in Microsoft Flight Simulator sacrifice considerable visual fidelity, particularly in cockpit detail and ground texture resolution.

The Medium preset at 1440p offers a compelling balance. At 75.6 FPS, it exceeds the 60 FPS threshold that most users consider playable for this genre, while providing significantly better visual quality than Low. The 4K Medium result of 53.1 FPS is borderline; it is playable but not ideal for users sensitive to frame pacing. At 1080p, Medium at 91.9 FPS is excellent, and this is arguably the sweet spot for the combination.

For users who prioritize visual immersion over raw frame rate, Ultra at 1440p produces 52.4 FPS. This is acceptable for a flight simulator, where the camera often moves slowly and frame drops are less noticeable than in fast-paced shooters. However, Ultra at 4K (36.7 FPS) is likely too choppy for most users, and High at 4K (40.1 FPS) is only marginally better. The data suggests that the best experience per the measured rows is Medium at 1440p or High at 1080p, with the former offering a higher resolution and the latter offering a higher frame rate (75.6 vs 69.3).

The High preset at 1440p (55.5 FPS) sits in a awkward middle ground—it is smoother than Ultra but not as fluid as Medium. Given that the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 3.1 FPS (55.5 vs 52.4), users who want the best visuals without a major frame rate penalty could justify Ultra. Conversely, the jump from Medium to High at 4K costs 13 FPS (53.1 to 40.1), which is a 24.5% reduction—too steep for the modest graphical gains in most scenes.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 22 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory operates across a 192-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU clocks are notably high: a base of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost of 2581 MHz. These aggressive clocks are a key reason why the card performs as well as it does in Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title that rewards raw fill rate and shader throughput.

The measured results indicate that the GPU's 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming at high settings, but it struggles at 4K. The 4K Ultra figure of 36.7 FPS suggests that the 64 ROPs and 160 TMUs are not enough to sustain the pixel and texture loads at that resolution. The 12 GB VRAM, however, is unlikely to be a limiting factor even at 4K, as flight simulators typically do not exceed this capacity at current settings, though large photogrammetry cities can be memory-hungry.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 77 places it above the majority of tested graphics cards. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6800 with an average score of 33493 (0.7% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 with 33294 (1.3% lower). The RX 6700 XT's average benchmark score of 33721 is closely matched by these competitors, indicating that performance in synthetic tests translates to similar real-world behavior in this simulator. The data shows that the GPU is the dominant factor in this combo's frame rate, especially at 1440p and above, where the Ryzen 5 3600's six cores and twelve threads are less likely to be the bottleneck.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is available. Low produces 119.3 FPS, Medium drops to 91.9 FPS, High yields 69.3 FPS, and Ultra is 67 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal (2.3 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not heavily taxing at this resolution. The step from Low to Medium is a 23% reduction, while Medium to High is a 24.6% reduction, indicating that each tier adds meaningful visual work.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress. Low runs at 95 FPS, Medium at 75.6 FPS, High at 55.5 FPS, and Ultra at 52.4 FPS. The Medium to High drop is 26.6%, which is steeper than at 1080p. The High to Ultra gap narrows to 5.6%, reinforcing that Ultra is not much more demanding than High at this resolution. The 1440p results are, on average, 75-80% of the 1080p scores, which aligns with the pixel count increase of 78% (from 2.07 million to 3.69 million).

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal for smooth play. Low is 68.3 FPS, Medium is 53.1 FPS, High is 40.1 FPS, and Ultra is 36.7 FPS. The 4K pixel count is 8.29 million, which is 4 times that of 1080p. The measured frame rates do not scale linearly—Low at 4K is 57.3% of Low at 1080p, while Ultra at 4K is 54.8% of Ultra at 1080p. This indicates that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; memory bandwidth and cache efficiency also play roles.

The most notable anomaly is the small delta between High and Ultra at 1080p (2.3 FPS) versus the larger delta at 1440p (3.1 FPS) and 4K (3.4 FPS). This consistency across resolutions suggests that the Ultra preset's extra cost is fixed, not proportional to resolution. In contrast, the Low to Medium delta grows with resolution (27.4 FPS at 1080p, 19.4 at 1440p, 15.2 at 4K), indicating that Medium's additional effects scale with pixel load.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT ranks 1038 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 57.8th percentile of all combinations, meaning it outperforms a majority of systems in the database. The rank is respectable but not elite, reflecting the mid-range positioning of both components.

The CPU alone sits at the 76th percentile of all processors, with an average benchmark score of 18129. Its nearest rivals are closely matched: the Intel Core i5-11400 scores 18150 (0.1% higher), the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 18101 (0.2% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 scores 18158 (0.2% higher). The GPU, at the 77th percentile, has an average score of 33721, with the RX 6800 just 0.7% higher and the HD 7950 at 1% lower. Both components are performing near their expected levels, and the combo rank reflects that neither is dragging the other down significantly.

Given that the combo rank is lower than the individual component percentiles, it suggests that the system as a whole is slightly underperforming relative to what each part might achieve with a stronger partner. This is typical for a CPU that is capable but not top-tier in single-threaded tasks (its 3dmark single-thread score is 696, and Cinebench R23 single-core is 2124). In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for simulation logic, the Ryzen 5 3600's Zen 2 architecture may be limiting the GPU's full potential, particularly at 1080p where CPU overhead is more visible.

The rank of 1038 out of 1795 indicates that there are 757 combos that perform worse, but also that a significant number of systems deliver higher frame rates. This is consistent with the fact that the RX 6700 XT is a capable 1440p card, but the CPU's 3.60 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clocks are modest by current standards. For users with this combo, the data suggests that focusing on GPU-bound settings (like resolution and texture quality) will yield better returns than pushing CPU-intensive options like draw distance or object density.