Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and AMD Radeon RX 6600 produces a highly resolution-dependent experience. The measured data across three resolutions and four quality presets reveals a system that is consistently capable of playable frame rates at 1080p, but which becomes increasingly constrained as pixel count rises. The average frame rates, ranging from 89.4 FPS at 1080p Low to 30.8 FPS at 4K High, indicate that the primary bottleneck shifts from the CPU at lower resolutions to the GPU at higher ones, a classic signature of a balanced mid-range pairing that is nevertheless pushed to its limits by this simulator's fidelity demands.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, confirming that the Radeon RX 6600 is the limiting component at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the system delivers 89.4 FPS at 1920x1080, which falls to 73.6 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 15.8 FPS, and then to 51.5 FPS at 3840x2160, a further drop of 22.1 FPS. This represents a total decline of 37.9 FPS from 1080p to 4K, or a 42.4% reduction in performance, which is substantial but not catastrophic given the 4x increase in pixel count.

The scaling pattern shifts with higher quality presets. At High settings, the system achieves 53.3 FPS at 1080p, 46.1 FPS at 1440p, and 30.8 FPS at 4K, showing a more gradual degradation that suggests the CPU is beginning to share the load at lower resolutions. The Ultra preset exhibits a similar trend, with 48.5 FPS at 1080p, 43.6 FPS at 1440p, and 31.3 FPS at 4K, where the difference between 1440p and 4K is only 12.3 FPS, indicating that the GPU is nearly saturated at both resolutions. The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where this combo can maintain frame rates above 60 FPS, and only at Low and Medium settings, with 89.4 FPS and 70.1 FPS respectively.

The 4K results are the most revealing for bottleneck analysis. At 4K, the difference between Low (51.5 FPS) and Ultra (31.3 FPS) is 20.2 FPS, which is a wider gap than the 18.1 FPS difference seen at 1080p between Low (89.4 FPS) and Ultra (48.5 FPS). This widening gap at higher resolutions is the definitive sign of GPU limitation, as the RX 6600's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are being fully taxed by the increased pixel throughput. Conversely, at 1080p, the smaller gaps between presets suggest that the Ryzen 5 4600G's six cores and twelve threads are keeping up adequately, but the GPU is still the primary constraint at Ultra settings.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, is the workhorse of this pairing, and its specifications directly explain the observed frame rates. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1626 MHz and a boost clock of 2491 MHz, with a game clock of 2044 MHz, and these frequencies are what allow the card to push 89.4 FPS at 1080p Low. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the 51.5 FPS at Low settings indicates the memory subsystem is struggling to feed the 1792 shading units.

The GPU's compute capabilities, rated at 8.928 TFLOPS FP32, are well-matched to the CPU's performance at lower resolutions, but the data shows that the RX 6600 cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K with higher presets. At 4K High, the average FPS is 30.8, and at 4K Ultra it is 31.3, both of which are below the 60 FPS threshold commonly desired for smooth flight simulation. The 28 ray tracing cores and 64 ROPs are present, but the frame rates suggest that the rasterization workload alone is sufficient to saturate the card, as Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy draw calls and detailed terrain tax the pixel pipeline.

The GPU's performance percentile of 69 among all GPUs places it in the mid-range, and its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 890M, which scores nearly identically with a deltaPct of 0, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which is only 0.5% faster in average benchmark scores. This indicates that the RX 6600 is a competent performer for its class, but the measured FPS data in this game shows that it is not sufficient for 4K gaming at high quality. The 132 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest a card that is efficient but not overbuilt for extreme resolutions, and the 14 Gbps effective memory speed is not enough to overcome the 128-bit bus limitation at 4K.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G, a 7 nm Zen 2 part with six cores and twelve threads, plays a supporting role in this pairing, but its contribution is critical at lower resolutions. The CPU's base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz provide sufficient single-thread performance for the simulator's engine, which is reflected in the 89.4 FPS at 1080p Low. The 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB L2 per core are modest by modern standards, but the 3dmark single-thread score of 726 and cinebench r23 single-core score of 1919 indicate that the CPU can keep up with the GPU's output at 1080p.

The CPU's multicore performance, as shown by the cinebench r23 multicore score of 13593 and passmark multithread score of 15992, is adequate for the simulator's background tasks, but the data shows that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 4K, the frame rates are nearly identical between High (30.8 FPS) and Ultra (31.3 FPS), which is a clear sign that the GPU is fully saturated and the CPU has headroom to spare. However, at 1080p, the difference between Low (89.4 FPS) and High (53.3 FPS) is 36.1 FPS, which suggests that the CPU is still managing the draw calls efficiently but cannot compensate for the GPU's limits at higher settings.

The CPU's percentile of 75 among all CPUs places it above the median, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12450H, which is 0.1% faster, and the Intel Core i3-14100T, which is 0.8% slower. This indicates that the 4600G is a solid mid-range processor, but the 65 W TDP and integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are not relevant to this discrete GPU configuration. The dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for the 224.0 GB/s GPU bandwidth, and the PCIe Gen 3, 20 Lanes interface does not appear to be a limiting factor in the measured results.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings for this combination, with the primary goal being to maintain a playable frame rate without sacrificing too much visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 89.4 FPS, which is the highest frame rate in the entire dataset, but the Medium preset at 70.1 FPS offers a significant visual improvement for a 19.3 FPS cost, making it the best balance for most users. The High preset at 53.3 FPS is still playable, but the drop below 60 FPS may be noticeable for some, and the Ultra preset at 48.5 FPS is not recommended for 1080p as it provides diminishing returns.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 58.3 FPS is the only setting that approaches the 60 FPS threshold, and the Low preset at 73.6 FPS is the safest choice for consistent smoothness. The High preset at 46.1 FPS and Ultra preset at 43.6 FPS are both below 50 FPS, which is suboptimal for a flight simulator where smooth panning is essential. For 1440p users, the data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot, as it maintains a playable frame rate while still offering a higher level of detail than Low.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves a playable frame rate above 60 FPS, with the Low preset at 51.5 FPS being the only option that exceeds 50 FPS. The Medium preset at 40.3 FPS, High at 30.8 FPS, and Ultra at 31.3 FPS are all below 45 FPS, which is likely to result in noticeable stuttering during flight. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only recommendation, and even then, the 51.5 FPS average may not be sufficient for all users, suggesting that this resolution is not viable for this combination without external scaling solutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and AMD Radeon RX 6600 ranks 1484 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower 17% of all configurations in the database. This ranking is a reflection of the game's extreme demands, as the measured frame rates at 1080p are competitive with other mid-range systems, but the 4K performance drags the overall score down relative to more powerful CPUs and GPUs. The rank of 1484 indicates that while this combo is functional for 1080p gaming, it is not well-suited for high-resolution or high-settings play in this specific title.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 17489 and the GPU's average benchmark score of 25235 are both respectable for their respective classes, but the combo rank in this game does not reflect those averages. This is because Microsoft Flight Simulator is a unique workload that emphasizes both single-thread CPU performance and GPU rasterization, and the measured FPS data shows that the RX 6600's 8 GB memory is a limitation at 4K. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-13100F with a deltaPct of -1, and the GPU's rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6700M with a deltaPct of 0.2, all exhibit similar performance characteristics, confirming that this combo is in a competitive but not exceptional tier.

In the context of the database, this combo's rank of 1484 out of 1795 means that 311 other configurations perform worse, which is a small margin given the game's popularity. The data suggests that users with this pairing should focus on 1080p or 1440p gaming with Medium settings to get the best experience, as the 4K results are marginal. The overall ranking is a fair assessment of the hardware's capabilities, as the measured FPS values align with the expected performance of a mid-range CPU and GPU, but the game's high system requirements mean that this combo is better suited for lower resolutions and quality presets.