Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT delivers a compelling, if somewhat lopsided, experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows this combination ranks 637th out of 1795 tested combos, placing it comfortably in the top third but revealing a clear bottleneck structure. The 6-core, 12-thread processor with a 3.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clock provides solid computational muscle, but it is the GPU that drives the most dramatic swings in performance across resolutions and settings.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Ryzen 5 4600G is a Zen 2 (Renoir) part built on a 7 nm process, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads. With a 65 W TDP and an 8 MB shared L3 cache, this is a capable mid-range desktop processor. Its benchmark profile shows a 3dmark_max_threads score of 4889 and a single-thread score of 726, indicating that while it can handle multi-threaded workloads, its single-core strength is modest. In a flight simulator like this, which relies heavily on draw calls and physics calculations across a few primary threads, the processor's 3dmark_4_threads score of 2732 becomes more relevant than its peak multi-thread number.

The CPU's performance relative to its peers is tight. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, scores an average of 17482, a delta of 0% compared to the 4600G's 17489 average. The Intel Core i5-12450H is effectively tied at 17475 (0.1% delta), while the Intel Core i3-14100T and Core i3-13100F are slightly ahead at 17636 (-0.8% delta) and 17665 (-1% delta), respectively. This suggests the 4600G is not leaving meaningful performance on the table relative to its direct competitors. In practice, the 6-core, 12-thread configuration is sufficient to keep the RX 6800 XT fed at lower resolutions, but as the resolution climbs, the CPU's influence on frame rates diminishes, shifting the burden to the graphics card.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the dominant component here. Built on RDNA 2.0 with a 7 nm process, this Navi 21 chip packs 4608 shading units and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clock speeds are substantial: a base of 1825 MHz, a game clock of 2015 MHz, and a boost of 2250 MHz. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 20.74 TFLOPS and a pixel rate of 288.0 GPixel/s indicate raw rasterization power that easily outclasses the CPU's capabilities.

The GPU's benchmark standing reinforces this. It sits in the 87th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49982. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A550M, scores 49737 (0.5% delta), while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is slightly ahead at 50826 (-1.7% delta). The NVIDIA CMP 50HX trails at 49071 (1.9% delta), and the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is behind at 48704 (2.6% delta). This places the RX 6800 XT in a high-performance tier. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 16 GB VRAM is a critical asset, allowing the GPU to hold large texture sets and terrain data without swapping to system memory. The high boost clock also ensures the card can push frame rates aggressively when the CPU is not the limiting factor.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a classic resolution scaling pattern that exposes the CPU as the primary limiter at 1080p and the GPU taking over at higher resolutions. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 139.7 FPS at 1920x1080 to 124 FPS at 2560x1440, a decline of 15.7 FPS, and then further to 87.5 FPS at 3840x2160, a steep drop of 36.5 FPS from 1440p. This progressive fall indicates that while the CPU can handle the lower resolution load, the GPU becomes increasingly strained as pixel count grows.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even more pronounced. The 1080p result is 83 FPS, which drops to 65.3 FPS at 1440p (a 21.3% reduction) and then to 50.5 FPS at 4K (a 22.7% reduction from 1440p). The fact that the gap between 1080p and 1440p is smaller than the gap between 1440p and 4K at Low settings, but larger at Ultra settings, suggests that the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth are being saturated at higher quality presets. The CPU, with its modest single-thread performance, can still push above 80 FPS at 1080p Ultra, but it cannot sustain that advantage as the GPU's workload scales. This is a textbook case where the RX 6800 XT's 16 GB VRAM and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth become the deciding factor at 4K, while the processor's 3dmark_single_thread score of 726 caps performance at lower resolutions.

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

The data offers a clear verdict on settings. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 119.4 FPS, which is a 28.3% improvement over High's 91.7 FPS and only 20.3 FPS less than Low's 139.7 FPS. Given that Medium will include more visual detail than Low, this is the sweet spot for high-refresh monitors. The jump from Medium to High costs 27.7 FPS, which is a significant hit for marginal visual gains. At 2560x1440, Medium again shines at 93.4 FPS, staying above the 90 FPS threshold while High drops to 70.7 FPS and Ultra falls to 65.3 FPS. The 1440p Medium result is 22.7 FPS higher than High, making it the recommended compromise for smooth gameplay on QHD panels.

For 4K, the situation is different. The High preset at 3840x2160 produces 52.1 FPS, which is just above the 50 FPS playability threshold, while Ultra drops to 50.5 FPS. Medium at 4K yields 67.3 FPS, a 29.2% improvement over High. Given the GPU's 16 GB VRAM, Medium at 4K is the most sensible choice, as it maintains a playable frame rate without sacrificing too much visual fidelity. Low at 4K (87.5 FPS) is technically smoother but looks poor for a simulation that relies on terrain detail. The recommendation is straightforward: use Medium at all resolutions for the best balance, and only drop to Low if absolute frame rate is the priority. Ultra is rarely worth the steep performance penalty.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Ryzen 5 4600G and RX 6800 XT ranks 637th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That placement puts it in the top 35.5% of all combinations, which is respectable but not elite. The ranking reflects the CPU's relative weakness compared to the GPU. While the RX 6800 XT alone sits in the 87th percentile of GPUs, the 4600G's 75th percentile CPU standing drags the combined score down. The data shows that this combo is not optimal for pure high-end performance, but it is far from a low-end pairing.

The rank also suggests that other combos with stronger CPUs would likely outperform this one at 1080p, where the processor is the bottleneck. However, at 4K, the GPU dominates, so this combo's rank in the lower third of the top half is likely driven by its 1080p and 1440p results. The delta between this combo and others in its rank band is not directly provided, but the GPU's 87th percentile and CPU's 75th percentile suggest a mismatch that a builder might address by upgrading the processor first.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the results are: Low 139.7 FPS, Medium 119.4 FPS, High 91.7 FPS, and Ultra 83 FPS. This shows a 56.7 FPS spread from Low to Ultra, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (27.7 FPS). At 2560x1440, the numbers are: Low 124 FPS, Medium 93.4 FPS, High 70.7 FPS, and Ultra 65.3 FPS. The spread here is 58.7 FPS, and again the Medium-to-High drop (22.7 FPS) is the most punishing. At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 87.5 FPS, Medium 67.3 FPS, High 52.1 FPS, and Ultra 50.5 FPS. The spread narrows to 37 FPS, indicating that the GPU is becoming the hard limit.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Low result of 139.7 FPS is 12.7% faster than 1440p Low (124 FPS) and 59.7% faster than 4K Low (87.5 FPS). At Ultra, the 1080p result of 83 FPS is 27.1% faster than 1440p Ultra (65.3 FPS) and 64.4% faster than 4K Ultra (50.5 FPS). The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at High settings shows a 22.8% drop (91.7 to 70.7 FPS), while 1440p to 4K High shows a 26.3% drop (70.7 to 52.1 FPS). These figures underscore that 4K Ultra is barely playable at 50.5 FPS, while 1080p Low is the only configuration that exceeds 140 FPS. The data consistently points to Medium as the most balanced preset, with 1080p Medium (119.4 FPS) being the only other configuration above 100 FPS.