Microsoft Flight Simulator

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 built on the Zen 2 architecture with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. It sits at the 76th percentile against all CPUs in the database, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15045 and a single-core score of 2124. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's workload is substantial because the simulation engine has to process flight physics, weather, and scenery streaming simultaneously.

The benchmark data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 123.6 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset. That figure drops to 71.6 FPS at Ultra settings, a decline of roughly 42% from Low to Ultra. The CPU's 3dmark scores reveal a scaling pattern: single-thread score is 696, while 2-thread jumps to 1361, 4-thread hits 2579, and 8-thread reaches 3844. This indicates that the processor benefits from additional threads up to a point, but the marginal gains shrink beyond 8 threads — max-thread score is 4603, only about 20% higher than the 8-thread result.

Against its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 3600 is essentially a dead heat with the Intel Core i5-11400 (deltaPct -0.1), the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (deltaPct 0.2), and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (deltaPct -0.2). The EPYC 9274F trails by 0.3%. What this means for Flight Simulator is that the CPU is not a bottleneck at lower resolutions — the frame rates at 1080p Low (123.6 FPS) are high enough to suggest headroom. However, the game's photogrammetry and terrain streaming can tax the 32 MB shared L3 cache, especially when the aircraft is flying over dense urban areas.

The 12 threads are adequate for the flight simulator's multi-threaded renderer, but the single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core 2124) is what governs the simulation loop's tick rate. Data suggests that the CPU's 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die at 7 nm deliver enough computational throughput to keep up with the GPU at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K the frame rates are dictated more by the graphics card.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured FPS rows span four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — across three resolutions. The most balanced experience appears at 1080p Medium, which delivers 97.1 FPS. That is 21.5% higher than High at the same resolution (76.1 FPS), and 35.6% higher than Ultra (71.6 FPS). Medium also keeps the frame rate well above the 60 FPS threshold, making it the sensible default for smooth flight control response.

At 1440p, Medium delivers 76.7 FPS, which is 26.8% higher than High (60.5 FPS) and 29.8% higher than Ultra (59.1 FPS). The Medium preset at 1440p is the only 1440p setting that clears 70 FPS, and it does so while staying within 22.6% of the Low preset's 99.1 FPS. For users with 1440p displays, Medium strikes the best compromise between visual fidelity and frame rate stability.

At 4K, Medium drops to 59.6 FPS, which is just under the 60 FPS target but still playable. High at 4K yields 41 FPS, and Ultra yields 39.6 FPS — both below the smoothness threshold. Low at 4K produces 72 FPS, but that preset sacrifices too much visual detail for a flight simulator where reading cockpit instruments and spotting terrain features matters. The data indicates that Medium is the highest preset that maintains acceptable frame rates across all three resolutions, with 59.6 FPS at 4K being the lowest point.

The gap between Medium and High at 1080p is 21.5%, but the gap between High and Ultra is only 6.3%. This suggests that the Ultra preset adds significant graphical load for marginal frame rate loss — the 71.6 FPS at 1080p Ultra is still playable, but the 39.6 FPS at 4K Ultra is not. For the best experience per the measured rows, Medium at 1080p or 1440p is the recommended starting point.

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

The measured data shows a clear pattern of frame rate degradation as resolution increases. At Medium settings, the frame rate falls from 97.1 FPS at 1080p to 76.7 FPS at 1440p (a 21.0% drop), then to 59.6 FPS at 4K (a further 22.3% drop from 1440p). The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium is 38.6%. At High settings, the drop is from 76.1 FPS at 1080p to 60.5 FPS at 1440p (20.5% drop), then to 41 FPS at 4K (32.2% drop from 1440p), for a cumulative 46.1% reduction. At Low settings, the frame rates go from 123.6 FPS at 1080p to 99.1 FPS at 1440p (19.8% drop), then to 72 FPS at 4K (27.3% drop from 1440p), totaling a 41.7% decrease.

The fact that the percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is consistently larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p — for High (32.2% vs 20.5%) and Low (27.3% vs 19.8%) — indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary limiter at higher resolutions. The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is substantial but not unlimited. At 4K, the pixel throughput requirement quadruples from 1080p, and the GPU's 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute must render more geometry and texture detail per frame.

At 1080p, the CPU's influence is more apparent. The Ryzen 5 3600's single-thread score of 696 in 3dmark and 2124 in Cinebench R23 suggests that the simulation thread can keep up with the GPU's output at lower resolutions. However, the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p (123.6 vs 71.6 FPS) shows that the game's draw calls and scenery complexity scale with settings, and the CPU's 6 cores handle that scaling adequately but not effortlessly. At 4K, the frame rates converge across settings (72 FPS Low, 59.6 Medium, 41 High, 39.6 Ultra), which is a classic sign of GPU saturation — the graphics card's rendering capacity is the ceiling, not the CPU.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p Medium (97.1 FPS) and 1440p Medium (76.7 FPS) both provide frame rates above 60 FPS. 4K Medium drops to 59.6 FPS, which is borderline, so 1440p is the highest resolution that maintains a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 3600 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 3600 scores 18129 on average, which is 0.1% behind the Intel Core i5-11400 (18150), 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (18101), and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (18158). The AMD EPYC 9274F trails by 0.3% at 18189. These deltas are within noise, meaning the CPU is not a differentiator in this game.

Q: Does the RX 6750 XT hold up at 4K in this game?

A: The data shows 4K Medium at 59.6 FPS and 4K High at 41 FPS. The GPU's 12 GB VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 4K textures, but the 13.31 TFLOPS compute limit becomes apparent at that resolution. Ultra at 4K (39.6 FPS) is not recommended.

Q: Is the Ultra preset worth the performance cost?

A: At 1080p, Ultra yields 71.6 FPS versus 97.1 FPS on Medium — a 35.6% penalty. At 1440p, Ultra (59.1 FPS) is 29.8% slower than Medium (76.7 FPS). At 4K, Ultra (39.6 FPS) is 33.6% slower than Medium (59.6 FPS). The visual uplift from Medium to Ultra is not quantified in this data, but the frame rate cost is substantial.

Q: What does the combo rank tell us about overall performance?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 893 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 50.2nd percentile. This means it performs in the middle of the pack, which aligns with the measured frame rates that are playable at 1080p and 1440p but struggle at 4K Ultra.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. It has 40 ray tracing cores and operates at a base clock of 2150 MHz with a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The GPU sits at the 79th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 35327. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, scores 35264 (deltaPct 0.2), while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile scores 35435 (deltaPct -0.3) and the AMD Radeon 880M scores 35646 (deltaPct -0.9). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is 1.3% ahead at 35787.

The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is directly relevant to Flight Simulator's high-resolution terrain and aircraft textures. At 4K, the game loads large texture sets for photogrammetry cities and detailed cockpits, and the 12 GB capacity prevents texture swapping. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth allows the GPU to stream these textures quickly as the simulated aircraft moves across the scenery.

The GPU's 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 416.0 GTexel/s texture rate are the performance ceilings that explain the resolution scaling data. At 1080p Medium, the GPU delivers 97.1 FPS, but at 4K Medium, that drops to 59.6 FPS — a 38.6% reduction. The pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K (8.3 million pixels per frame), the GPU must process 4 times the pixel workload of 1080p, which is why the frame rates compress toward 40-70 FPS regardless of settings.

The GPU's boost clock of 2600 MHz and game clock of 2495 MHz are relevant for sustained performance during long flight sessions. The 250 W TDP and dual-slot design with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors indicate that the card can maintain these clocks under load, which is critical for a flight simulator where the scenery renderer continuously generates new geometry. The 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2548 and Passmark G3D score of 20700 confirm that the GPU's DirectX 12 performance is strong, and Flight Simulator's DX12 renderer leverages this via the 12 Ultimate API support.

At 4K Ultra, the GPU produces 39.6 FPS, which is only 3.5% lower than 4K High (41 FPS). This small delta suggests that the GPU is saturated at both settings, and the difference between High and Ultra is negligible because the bottleneck is the GPU's compute throughput rather than the settings' rendering features. In contrast, at 1080p, the spread from Low (123.6 FPS) to Ultra (71.6 FPS) is 72.7%, indicating that the CPU and GPU both have headroom at lower resolutions, and the settings scale the workload meaningfully.