Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the data for the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER combination reveals a system that is carefully balanced between its central and graphics processors. The measured results show a clear narrative of how resolution dictates which component becomes the primary bottleneck, and how the game’s settings scale the workload across the hardware. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to understand the performance characteristics of this specific pairing.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that decline tells a significant story about system balance. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 110.9 FPS, which drops to 85.9 FPS at 1440p and further to 62.7 FPS at 4K. This represents a substantial 43.5% performance reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The pattern at High settings is similar, with 63.8 FPS at 1080p, 51.8 FPS at 1440p, and 40.2 FPS at 4K, a 37% drop across the same resolution span.

The scaling behavior suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting, while at 4K, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor. The FPS drop from 1440p to 4K at High settings is 22.4%, while the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 18.8%. This consistent reduction indicates that the RTX 2070 SUPER is being progressively saturated as pixel count rises. The fact that the 1080p Low result of 110.9 FPS is far above the 4K Ultra result of 34.2 FPS highlights how much headroom the CPU has at lower resolutions, and how quickly the GPU becomes the bottleneck when the pixel workload increases.

The data implies that for users targeting high refresh rate monitors at 1080p, this combo can deliver well over 60 FPS even at High settings. However, at 4K, the system struggles to maintain 60 FPS even at Low settings, where it achieves 62.7 FPS. This suggests that 4K gaming with this hardware is only viable at the lowest quality presets, and even then, it is on the edge of playability. The scaling pattern strongly indicates a GPU-limited scenario at higher resolutions, with the CPU having enough headroom to feed the GPU adequately.

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, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 15045 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2124 points in single-core, placing it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-11400, has an average score that is only 0.1% higher, indicating that the Ryzen 5 3600 is performance-competitive with that chip.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most evident in the 1080p results, where the frame rates are highest. The jump from Low to Medium settings at 1080p results in a drop from 110.9 FPS to 85.2 FPS, a 23.2% reduction. This suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as the GPU is still able to render frames quickly. However, the single-thread performance of 696 points in 3DMark single-thread test is relevant, as flight simulators often rely heavily on a single main thread for game logic and physics.

The data shows that the Ryzen 5 3600 provides sufficient processing power to keep the RTX 2070 SUPER well-fed at 1080p and 1440p. At 1440p Low, the system hits 85.9 FPS, which is only a 22.5% drop from the 1080p Low result. This indicates that the CPU is not holding back performance at these resolutions. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth likely help with the streaming of terrain and scenery data, which is a hallmark of flight simulation. The 12 threads may also assist with background tasks like AI traffic and weather calculations, though the primary gaming performance is likely dictated by the single-thread capabilities.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is a Turing architecture GPU with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It has a base clock of 1605 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, with 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs. Its average benchmark score of 22206 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A400, being 0.5% higher in average score.

The GPU's role becomes dominant at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 34.2 FPS, which is a 44.7% reduction from the 4K Low result of 62.7 FPS. This stark difference underscores how the graphics card is overwhelmed by the combination of high resolution and maximum quality settings. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor here; Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for loading large textures, and at 4K with Ultra settings, the VRAM buffer is likely under significant pressure, potentially causing texture streaming issues that impact frame rates.

The RTX 2070 SUPER's ray tracing cores (40 RT cores) and tensor cores (320) are present, but the measured data does not indicate whether ray tracing is enabled in these tests. Given the game's release date and the performance numbers, it is plausible that the tests were conducted without ray tracing, as enabling it would likely cause a substantial FPS hit. The GPU's 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is the raw compute capability, and the results show that at 1080p High, it delivers 63.8 FPS, which is a solid playable frame rate. The data suggests that the GPU is the limiting component at 4K, where even Low settings only yield 62.7 FPS, barely above the 60 FPS threshold.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER ranks 1112 out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 62nd percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms a majority of combinations but is not near the top tier. The ranking suggests that while this setup is capable of running the game, there are many more powerful configurations available that will deliver higher frame rates.

The rank of 1112 out of 1795 indicates that this combo is positioned in the mid-to-upper range of tested hardware. Given the CPU's 76th percentile ranking and the GPU's 65th percentile ranking, the in-game rank is consistent with the individual component performance. The fact that the CPU ranks higher than the GPU in their respective percentiles suggests that the graphics card is the more likely bottleneck in demanding scenarios, which aligns with the resolution scaling analysis. The data implies that users with this combo should expect competitive performance relative to other mid-range systems, but should not anticipate top-tier frame rates at high resolutions.

The measured FPS data supports this ranking. At 1080p High, the system achieves 63.8 FPS, which is playable but not exceptional. At 1440p High, it drops to 51.8 FPS, and at 4K High, it falls to 40.2 FPS. These numbers indicate that the combo is best suited for 1080p gaming or 1440p with reduced settings. The rank of 1112 suggests that there are 683 combos that perform better, which likely include more powerful GPUs or CPUs that can push higher frame rates, especially at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this combo?

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p provides the most consistent performance. At High settings, it achieves 63.8 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p High, it drops to 51.8 FPS, and at 4K High, it falls to 40.2 FPS.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming?

A: The data shows that at 4K, the system only achieves 62.7 FPS at Low settings and 34.2 FPS at Ultra settings. This indicates that 4K gaming is only viable at lower quality presets, and even then, frame rates are not consistently above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 has an average benchmark score of 18129, which is 0.1% lower than the Intel Core i5-11400's score of 18150. This indicates a nearly identical level of performance between the two processors.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the system achieves 110.9 FPS on Low settings and 60.2 FPS on Ultra settings. This represents a 45.7% reduction in frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor at 1440p?

A: The data shows that at 1440p, the system achieves 85.9 FPS on Low and 69.6 FPS on Medium. The relatively small drop from Low to Medium suggests that the GPU is beginning to become the bottleneck, but the CPU still has enough headroom to support these frame rates.

Q: What is the rank of this combo compared to all other tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 1112 out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all systems tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 110.9 FPS on Low, 85.2 FPS on Medium, 63.8 FPS on High, and 60.2 FPS on Ultra. This shows a clear progression where each increase in quality reduces frame rate, with the largest drop occurring between Low and Medium at 23.2%.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results are 85.9 FPS on Low, 69.6 FPS on Medium, 51.8 FPS on High, and 52.1 FPS on Ultra. Interestingly, the Ultra setting at 1440p yields a slightly higher frame rate than High, which is an anomaly in the data that could be due to a specific scene or measurement variance. The drop from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 39.3%, which is less severe than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the system achieves 62.7 FPS on Low, 48.9 FPS on Medium, 40.2 FPS on High, and 34.2 FPS on Ultra. The reduction from Low to Ultra at 4K is 45.5%, the largest percentage drop across any resolution. The data shows that at 4K, even the Low preset is barely above 60 FPS, and all other settings fall below that threshold. The measured values indicate that the system's performance scales consistently with resolution, but the absolute frame rates at 4K are the most constrained.

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

The measured FPS data allows for a clear recommendation based on the desired balance between visual quality and frame rate. For users prioritizing a smooth experience at 1080p, the High preset at 63.8 FPS is the best choice, as it provides a frame rate above 60 FPS while offering significantly better visual fidelity than Low. The Ultra preset at 60.2 FPS is also viable, but the marginal improvement in quality may not justify the 5.6% reduction in frame rate compared to High.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 69.6 FPS offers the best combination of playability and visual quality. The High preset drops to 51.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target, while Low at 85.9 FPS sacrifices too much visual detail. The Ultra preset at 52.1 FPS is slightly higher than High, but the difference is negligible, making Medium the recommended sweet spot for this resolution.

For 4K gaming, the data suggests that only the Low preset at 62.7 FPS is acceptable for a playable experience. The Medium preset at 48.9 FPS and High at 40.2 FPS are below 60 FPS and may result in noticeable stuttering in a flight simulator where smooth camera movement is critical. The Ultra preset at 34.2 FPS is not recommended for serious play. Therefore, the best experience at 4K is achieved with the Low preset, which balances a playable frame rate with the higher resolution's visual benefits.