Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frames per second across the three resolutions reveal a system that transitions from a CPU-bound state at 1080p to a heavily GPU-limited state at 4K. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and AMD Radeon RX 7600 combination delivers 99.8 FPS, but this drops by roughly 18% to 81.5 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, and then falls a further 27% to 59.5 FPS at 3840x2160 Low. The scaling pattern at the Low preset indicates that the processor’s six Zen 2 cores are capable of feeding the Radeon RX 7600 adequately at lower resolutions, but the GPU’s rendering workload becomes the dominant constraint as pixel count rises.

Moving to the High preset, the frame rate curve is notably flatter. The system produces 61.9 FPS at 1080p, 45.2 FPS at 1440p, and 37.3 FPS at 4K. The relatively modest 40% drop from 1080p to 4K at High, compared to the 40% drop at Low across the same resolution span, suggests that the flight simulator’s draw calls and terrain streaming are taxing the CPU more heavily at higher detail levels. The gap between Low and High at 1080p is 37.9 FPS (99.8 vs. 61.9), which is a substantial reduction that points to the CPU’s single-thread performance—measured at 805 in Cinebench R20 single-core—becoming a limiting factor when more geometry and scenery complexity are enabled.

At 4K, the resolution scaling tells a clearer story about the Radeon RX 7600’s capabilities. The difference between Low (59.5 FPS) and Ultra (32.1 FPS) is 27.4 FPS, a 46% performance penalty for maximum visual fidelity. This is consistent with the GPU’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, which provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra preset at 4K demands more than the card’s shading units and memory subsystem can sustain, resulting in sub-30 FPS territory that is generally considered marginal for a smooth flight experience. The data indicates that 1440p is the sweet spot for this pairing, where the scaling from Low to Ultra (81.5 down to 42.8 FPS) still offers playable headroom across all settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G combined with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 places at rank 1219 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This percentile position, roughly in the 32nd percentile of all configurations, reflects the inherent imbalance of pairing a mid-range 2020 processor with a 2023 graphics card. The CPU’s overall benchmark percentile of 75 versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17489, indicates that the processor is not the weakest link in absolute terms. However, the GPU’s percentile of 63 against all GPUs, with an average score of 20258, suggests that the graphics card is also not a top-tier part.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the processor, the Ryzen 5 4600G’s average score of 17489 is virtually tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE at 17482 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17475 (0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i3-14100T at 17636 (-0.8% delta). This clustering shows that the 4600G’s compute potential is competitive with those parts, yet in Flight Simulator’s specific workload, the combination still ranks in the bottom third of all tested systems. The implication is that the game’s engine, which is known for heavy single-threaded usage, does not fully leverage the CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities measured at 13593 in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The GPU’s nearest rivals provide additional context. The Radeon RX 7600’s average score of 20258 is just 0.6% behind the RX 7600 XT (20146), 0.8% ahead of the RX 460 (20088), and 1.3% ahead of the RTX 3070 Mobile (20534). The fact that the RX 7600 sits so close to the RX 7600 XT in synthetic benchmarks, yet the combo rank is still 1219, reinforces that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. If the processor were stronger, this same GPU would likely push the combination into a higher percentile. The ranking data suggests that users with this pairing are getting performance that is representative of a mid-range 2023 GPU attached to an entry-level 2020 APU, and the combo’s position reflects that compromise.

Settings Recommendations

For 1920x1080 resolution, the data supports using the High preset as the default recommendation. The measured 61.9 FPS at High is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold, and the jump to Ultra only delivers 58.8 FPS—a marginal 3 FPS gain in visual quality that is unlikely to be noticeable in a flight simulator where camera movement is often slow and deliberate. The Low preset at 99.8 FPS is overkill for this genre, and the visual degradation of terrain textures and object density would detract from the experience. Medium at 80.1 FPS is a viable alternative for users who prioritize frame rate stability over graphical fidelity, but High offers the best balance of performance and immersion.

At 2560x1440, the High preset again emerges as the recommended setting, delivering 45.2 FPS. While this is below 60 FPS, flight simulators are typically more forgiving of lower frame rates than fast-paced shooters, and the visual clarity at 1440p compensates for the frame rate deficit. The Ultra preset at 42.8 FPS is only 2.4 FPS slower, which is within the margin of measurement error, so users with a G-Sync or FreeSync display could opt for Ultra without a significant penalty. The Medium preset at 64.3 FPS is the only option that maintains a 60+ FPS experience at 1440p, making it the choice for users who demand smoothness above all else. Low at 81.5 FPS is not recommended because the reduction in draw distance and shadow quality would be counterproductive for a game that relies heavily on visual situational awareness.

For 4K resolution, the recommendation is more nuanced. The Low preset at 59.5 FPS is the only setting that approaches playable 60 FPS territory, but it sacrifices nearly all of the game’s visual identity. The Medium preset at 45 FPS is a better compromise, offering a playable experience with moderate detail. The High preset at 37.3 FPS and Ultra at 32.1 FPS are both below the 40 FPS threshold that many users consider the minimum for an acceptable flight experience. Given the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, 4K is pushing the hardware to its limits, and users should expect to make significant visual concessions. The data indicates that 4K is only viable with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the experience is not optimal.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings shows a clear hierarchy. Low settings produce an average of 99.8 FPS, which is the highest frame rate measured for any resolution and setting combination. Medium follows at 80.1 FPS, a 19.7 FPS drop that is consistent with increased shading and texture filtering demands. High settings yield 61.9 FPS, which represents a further 18.2 FPS decline from Medium. Ultra settings bring the frame rate down to 58.8 FPS, a modest 3.1 FPS reduction from High that suggests the Ultra preset adds effects that are not heavily GPU-intensive at this resolution. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 41 FPS, indicating that the CPU has enough headroom to expose the GPU’s performance scaling across different quality tiers.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low settings deliver 81.5 FPS, which is 18.3 FPS lower than the same setting at 1080p. Medium drops to 64.3 FPS, a 17.2 FPS reduction from Low. High settings measure 45.2 FPS, which is a substantial 19.1 FPS drop from Medium—the largest single-step decline in the entire dataset. Ultra comes in at 42.8 FPS, only 2.4 FPS below High. The 1440p results show that the transition from Medium to High is particularly demanding, likely due to increased shadow resolution and volumetric effects that stress the GPU’s 2048 shading units. The total spread from Low to Ultra at 1440p is 38.7 FPS, which is slightly narrower than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is starting to become a limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the results are the most constrained. Low settings produce 59.5 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 60% of the 1080p Low score. Medium drops to 45 FPS, a 14.5 FPS reduction from Low. High settings measure 37.3 FPS, a 7.7 FPS drop from Medium. Ultra bottoms out at 32.1 FPS, which is 5.2 FPS below High. The 4K dataset shows diminishing returns from setting changes, with the gap between High and Ultra narrowing to just 5.2 FPS compared to the 3.1 FPS gap at 1080p. This compression of frame rates at 4K suggests that the GPU is saturated and additional quality settings have less impact on performance because the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth are already fully utilized.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, plays a critical role in determining the frame rates across all settings. The GPU’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a modest figure for 4K gaming but adequate for 1080p and 1440p. The card’s base clock of 1720 MHz, game clock of 2250 MHz, and boost clock of 2655 MHz show a substantial dynamic range that allows the GPU to ramp up performance under load. The memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed is a key factor in the 4K results, where the bandwidth bottleneck becomes apparent.

The benchmark results for the GPU show a Passmark G3D score of 16634 and a Passmark GPU compute score of 8790, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rival, the RX 7600 XT, has an average score of 20146, which is only 0.6% higher than the RX 7600’s 20258. This close margin suggests that the RX 7600 is well-positioned in its class, but the Flight Simulator results indicate that the game’s specific rendering paths do not fully utilize the card’s theoretical compute capabilities. The FP32 throughput of 21.75 TFLOPS and the texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s are respectable for a mid-range card, yet the 4K Ultra result of 32.1 FPS shows that the memory subsystem is the primary constraint.

The GPU’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 32 ray tracing cores are present in the hardware, but Flight Simulator’s measured results do not show a significant benefit from these features at the tested settings, as the frame rates are primarily limited by rasterization and memory bandwidth. The 165 W TDP and the 1x 8-pin power connector suggest that the card is a moderate power consumer, and the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for this workload. In the context of the 4K results, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is a limiting factor, as the Ultra preset at 4K likely exceeds the available memory capacity, leading to performance degradation. The data confirms that the RX 7600 is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can deliver playable frame rates across all quality settings, while 4K requires significant compromises in visual fidelity.