Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT show a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 121.5 FPS, which drops to 96.9 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 67.4 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 44.6% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, indicating the rendering load scales dramatically with pixel count.

Moving to High settings, the same resolution progression yields 73.3 FPS at 1080p, 56.6 FPS at 1440p, and 40.2 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is 45.2%, nearly identical to the Low preset. This consistency suggests the limiting component remains the same across settings tiers — the GPU is doing the heavy lifting, and the CPU has enough headroom to feed it at all tested resolutions.

The Ultra preset tells a similar story: 67.6 FPS at 1080p, 56.2 FPS at 1440p, and 38.3 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-4K drop here is 43.3%, slightly smaller than the other presets. Interestingly, the gap between 1440p and 4K at Ultra is 17.9 FPS, while the gap between 1080p and 1440p is only 11.4 FPS. This nonlinear scaling indicates that 4K Ultra pushes the GPU into a region where pixel throughput becomes the dominant constraint, and the frame rate falls below the 40 FPS threshold that many users consider the minimum for smooth flight simulation.

The data shows that at 1080p, even Ultra settings stay above 60 FPS, which is notable for a simulation title known for heavy autogen scenery and weather computations. At 1440p, the High and Medium presets remain playable, while Ultra dips just below 60 FPS. At 4K, only Low settings clear 60 FPS, and Ultra falls to 38.3 FPS. This scaling pattern suggests the RX 6700 XT's 12 GB VRAM and 384.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for the asset streaming demands of Flight Simulator, but the raw shading throughput becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

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. The GPU operates with a base clock of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost clock of 2581 MHz. These clock speeds are among the higher figures for the Radeon RX 6000 series, and the benchmark results reflect that positioning. The card's 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 throughput rated at 13.21 TFLOPS.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is heavily tied to rendering the photogrammetry data, terrain mesh, and dynamic weather effects. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (121.5) and 1080p High (73.3) shows the GPU has substantial headroom at lower resolutions. However, the RX 6700 XT sits at the 77th percentile among all GPUs in the benchmark database, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (0.7% higher average score) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (1.3% lower average score). This places it in a competitive mid-to-high tier, but the 4K Ultra result of 38.3 FPS indicates the card is not designed for maximum fidelity at the highest pixel counts in this particular simulation.

The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus yields 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Flight Simulator is known for streaming large texture packs and terrain data, and the VRAM capacity appears adequate for the tested presets — there is no evidence of texture thrashing or stutter in the average FPS figures. The memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) is standard for the RX 6000 lineup, and the data suggests it is not the limiting factor at any resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide clear guidance for optimal settings based on target frame rates and resolution. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 67.6 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. This makes Ultra the clear choice at 1080p — the performance cost from High to Ultra is only 5.7 FPS, a modest penalty for the visual fidelity gain. Medium at 1080p offers 92.1 FPS, but the jump from Medium to Ultra is only 24.5 FPS, so users with 60 Hz displays should prioritize Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more nuanced. High settings produce 56.6 FPS, while Ultra produces 56.2 FPS — a negligible 0.4 FPS difference that places both presets just below the 60 FPS line. Medium delivers 77.1 FPS and Low delivers 96.9 FPS. For users with a 1440p monitor, the recommendation is to start with High settings, as the data shows Ultra provides no measurable benefit at this resolution while consuming more GPU resources. If a locked 60 FPS is required, dropping to Medium yields a 20.5 FPS improvement over High, which is a substantial gain for one preset step.

At 3840x2160, the picture is more challenging. Low settings produce 67.4 FPS, which is playable, but Medium drops to 55.4 FPS and High falls to 40.2 FPS. Ultra at 4K is the worst case at 38.3 FPS. The data indicates that 4K users should either accept Low settings for smooth performance or target High/Ultra only if they can tolerate frame rates in the 38-40 FPS range. The step from Low to Medium at 4K costs 12.0 FPS, and the step from Medium to High costs another 15.2 FPS — these are significant penalties for incremental visual gains.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT ranks 982 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 54.7th percentile of all configurations in the database. This mid-pack ranking reflects a pairing where the GPU is notably stronger than the CPU in relative terms. The RX 6700 XT sits at the 77th percentile among GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 4600G sits at the 75th percentile among CPUs — a balanced pairing on paper, but the game's heavy single-threaded simulation logic may not fully utilize the six-core processor.

The combo's rank of 982 out of 1795 suggests that while this system handles Flight Simulator reasonably well, there are many faster configurations. The measured frame rates are competitive for the hardware class, but the 4K Ultra result of 38.3 FPS is below what top-tier combos would deliver. The average benchmark scores for the individual components — 17489 for the CPU and 33721 for the GPU — indicate this is a solid mid-range system, but the game's demands at high resolution and detail settings exceed what this pairing can sustain at high frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture (Renoir codename), fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The CPU's benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13593 and a single-core score of 1919, placing it at the 75th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12450H (0.1% higher average score) and the Intel Core i3-14100T (0.8% lower average score).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical for simulation logic, flight physics, and AI traffic management. The measured frame rates show that at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 121.5 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU at lower resolutions. However, the single-thread performance — Cinebench R20 single-core score of 805 and 3DMark single-thread score of 726 — is modest by modern standards. This becomes relevant when considering that Flight Simulator's main thread handles world simulation and weather updates, and the data shows diminishing returns beyond 1080p where the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

The 65 W TDP and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth of the Ryzen 5 4600G are adequate for this game, but the processor's 4000 series heritage shows its age in the single-thread scores. The multi-thread scores are respectable — Cinebench R23 multi-core of 13593 and Geekbench multi-core of 6093 — but the game does not scale perfectly across all 12 threads. The benchmark data suggests that the CPU is not the primary limiter at 1440p or 4K, but at 1080p with Low settings, the 121.5 FPS figure indicates the CPU can deliver high frame rates when the GPU is not saturated.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 121.5 FPS, Medium achieves 92.1 FPS, High achieves 73.3 FPS, and Ultra achieves 67.6 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 53.9 FPS, with the largest single-step drop occurring between Low and Medium at 29.4 FPS. The step from Medium to High costs 18.8 FPS, and the step from High to Ultra costs only 5.7 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low delivers 96.9 FPS, Medium delivers 77.1 FPS, High delivers 56.6 FPS, and Ultra delivers 56.2 FPS. The spread here is 40.7 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 19.8 FPS, from Medium to High is 20.5 FPS, and from High to Ultra is a marginal 0.4 FPS — effectively no difference.

At 3840x2160, Low produces 67.4 FPS, Medium produces 55.4 FPS, High produces 40.2 FPS, and Ultra produces 38.3 FPS. The spread is 29.1 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 12.0 FPS, Medium to High costs 15.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 1.9 FPS.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings: at Low, 1080p is 24.6 FPS higher than 1440p, and 1440p is 29.5 FPS higher than 4K. At Medium, the gaps are 15.0 FPS and 21.7 FPS respectively. At High, the gaps are 16.7 FPS and 16.4 FPS. At Ultra, the gaps are 11.4 FPS and 17.9 FPS. These numbers confirm that the GPU scales consistently with resolution, and the RX 6700 XT's performance in this game is best characterized as 60+ FPS capable at 1080p Ultra, 55-60 FPS at 1440p High/Ultra, and 40-55 FPS at 4K Medium/High depending on exact settings.