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 3600 with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT produces a fascinating profile. The data shows a system that is exceptionally capable at high resolutions but whose performance scaling reveals a distinct bottleneck as settings and resolution change. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions, examines the roles of the CPU and GPU, and places this combo within the broader context of all tested configurations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic resolution-dependent scaling pattern that highlights the shifting balance between CPU and GPU load. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo reaches an average of 138.1 FPS, but this drops to 123 FPS at 1440p and further to 91.5 FPS at 4K. This represents a 33.7% performance drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating that the GPU is becoming increasingly stressed as pixel count rises, though the CPU still has headroom.

The scaling story changes dramatically when moving to Ultra settings. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 83.3, which drops to 65.3 FPS at 1440p and 49.4 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is 40.7%, larger than the drop seen at Low settings. This suggests that at higher settings, the additional graphical complexity amplifies the GPU workload more aggressively, making the RX 6800 XT the primary limiter. The data indicates that at 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the constraining factor, as the GPU has enough headroom to render frames quickly, but the Ryzen 5 3600 cannot feed it fast enough. Conversely, at 4K Ultra, the GPU is clearly saturated, and the CPU’s role diminishes.

The intermediate settings tell a similar story. At Medium settings, the FPS goes from 120.2 at 1080p to 93.1 at 1440p and 71.9 at 4K, a 40.2% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings show 87.6 FPS at 1080p, 70.1 FPS at 1440p, and 54.3 FPS at 4K, a 38.0% drop. The consistency of these drops across Medium, High, and Ultra indicates that the GPU’s rendering pipeline is the dominant factor at resolutions above 1080p, regardless of the specific preset. The only scenario where the CPU appears to be the limiting component is at 1080p Low, where the FPS ceiling seems artificially capped.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a formidable piece of silicon, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process from TSMC. It houses 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, and its specs are robust for flight simulation. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz, with a game clock of 2015 MHz. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is crucial for streaming the vast, detailed terrain and photogrammetry data that Microsoft Flight Simulator loads in real time.

The benchmark results for this GPU show it performs well above average, sitting in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3689, and its Passmark G3D score is 24980, indicating strong raw compute capabilities. The FP32 performance is 20.74 TFLOPS, which allows for complex shader and lighting calculations. In the context of this game, the 16 GB VRAM is a notable advantage, as flight simulators are known for consuming large amounts of memory for textures and scenery. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 49.4, which is just below the 60 FPS target that many users prefer, but the GPU’s memory bandwidth ensures that frame pacing remains stable even when the scenery demands a lot of data.

The GPU’s role is further clarified by comparing it to its nearest rivals in the database. The RX 6800 XT has an average benchmark score of 49982, which is 0.5% higher than the Intel Arc A550M and 1.9% higher than the NVIDIA CMP 50HX. It trails the NVIDIA RTX A1000 by 1.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER by 2.6%. These small deltas indicate that the RX 6800 XT is a top-tier performer, but it is not the absolute fastest. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this translates to playable frame rates at 4K, but not the highest possible. The GPU’s clock behavior, with a boost of 2250 MHz, suggests it can sustain high performance under load, but the measured FPS at 4K Ultra shows that the game’s demands are substantial.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a Zen 2 architecture processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. It has a 32 MB shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. In the benchmark database, this CPU has a percentile rank of 76, indicating it is better than most processors but not at the top tier. Its multi-threaded performance is solid, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15045, but its single-thread score of 2124 is more modest.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to be heavily single-thread dependent for its core simulation logic, the Ryzen 5 3600’s single-core performance is a critical factor. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 138.1 FPS, but this is likely limited by the CPU’s ability to process the simulation updates and draw calls. The CPU’s 3DMark single-thread score of 696 and Passmark single-thread score of 2562 indicate that while it is competent, it lags behind newer, higher-clocked processors. The nearest rivals for this CPU include the Intel Core i5-11400, which has an average score of 18150 and is 0.1% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which is 0.2% faster. The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is 0.2% slower, and the AMD EPYC 9274F is 0.3% slower. These small deltaPct values show that the Ryzen 5 3600 is in a tightly contested performance bracket.

In the context of this game, the CPU’s 12 threads allow for background tasks like scenery loading to run alongside the main simulation thread. The Passmark multi-thread score of 17700 and Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6318 show that the CPU can handle parallel workloads, but the single-thread bottleneck remains. The data indicates that at 1080p Low, the FPS does not scale as well as it does at higher resolutions, suggesting that the CPU is the limiting factor in that specific scenario. As the resolution increases, the GPU takes over as the primary bottleneck, and the CPU’s relative impact diminishes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of this combo’s performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 138.1 at Low settings to 83.3 at Ultra settings. The Medium preset delivers 120.2 FPS, and High delivers 87.6 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p is highly playable at any setting, with even Ultra exceeding the 60 FPS threshold by a significant margin. The jump from Low to Medium is a 12.9% drop, while the jump from Medium to High is a 27.1% drop, and from High to Ultra is a 4.9% drop. This suggests that the High and Ultra presets impose a similar load on the system, while Medium and Low are less demanding.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 123 at Low, 93.1 at Medium, 70.1 at High, and 65.3 at Ultra. The 1440p Low result is still above 100 FPS, but the Ultra result falls below the 70 FPS mark. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a 10.9% drop at Low, a 22.5% drop at Medium, a 20.0% drop at High, and a 21.6% drop at Ultra. These consistent drops indicate that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS is 91.5 at Low, 71.9 at Medium, 54.3 at High, and 49.4 at Ultra. The 4K Low result is still playable, but the High and Ultra presets drop below 60 FPS, which may be a concern for users with high-refresh-rate 4K monitors. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a 25.6% drop at Low, a 22.8% drop at Medium, a 22.6% drop at High, and a 24.4% drop at Ultra. This shows that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at 4K, as the FPS drops are consistent across all settings. The data clearly shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K being playable only at lower settings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of all tested combinations, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks 634 out of 1795 total combos. This places it in the 64.7th percentile of all configurations, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of the tested systems. The rank is respectable, but it is not in the top tier, which is expected given the CPU’s mid-range positioning and the GPU’s high-end capabilities.

The ranking reflects the balance between the two components. The GPU’s strong performance in the 87th percentile helps boost the combo, but the CPU’s 76th percentile ranking holds it back. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where CPU performance is critical for simulation logic, the Ryzen 5 3600 is a sensible pairing, but it does not allow the RX 6800 XT to reach its full potential at lower resolutions. The data shows that the combo is more competitive at higher resolutions, where the GPU’s strengths are more fully utilized. The rank of 634 indicates that there are 633 configurations that achieve higher average FPS, likely featuring faster CPUs or more powerful GPUs. However, the combo is still well above the median, making it a solid choice for users who prioritize 1440p or 4K gaming over maximum frame rates at 1080p. The benchmark results confirm that this is a capable pairing, but the CPU is the clear weak link in the chain.