Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT

This configuration pairs a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 2 processor with a 16 GB RDNA 3 graphics card, producing a system that handles Microsoft Flight Simulator's demanding flight model and streaming terrain at playable frame rates across most settings. The measured data reveals a setup that is clearly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, yet the CPU's single-thread performance becomes a visible constraint at 1080p with lower graphical loads. With an average benchmark score of 17,489 for the CPU and 20,146 for the GPU, this combo lands at rank 1,180 out of 1,795 tested configurations — a position that suggests it sits in the lower-middle tier of the database, but with specific settings where it can deliver a smooth experience.

Settings Recommendations

The data shows that the Medium preset at 2560x1440 delivers the most balanced experience, yielding 62.6 FPS average. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold that flight sim enthusiasts typically prefer for smooth panning across cockpit instruments and terrain. At 1080p, Medium pushes to 82.3 FPS, which is excellent for this genre, while High at 1080p drops to 59.1 FPS — still playable but borderline. The Ultra preset at 1080p produces 56.5 FPS, which is slightly below the ideal smoothness mark, and at 1440p Ultra falls to 47.4 FPS. For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, High at 1440p (47.2 FPS) is a viable option, but the data suggests that Medium at 1440p is the sweet spot — it nearly doubles the 4K High result of 34.3 FPS while maintaining significantly better image quality than Low. At 4K, even Medium (49.2 FPS) is marginally playable, but Low (63.8 FPS) is the only preset that consistently maintains smooth motion at that resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

With a combo rank of 1,180 out of 1,795 tested combinations, this system sits in the 34th percentile of all configurations measured in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This positioning is notably below what the individual component percentiles might suggest — the CPU ranks in the 75th percentile against all CPUs, and the GPU ranks in the 63rd percentile against all GPUs. The gap between component-level percentiles and the in-game combo rank indicates that this game is exceptionally demanding on both processors simultaneously, and that the combination does not scale as well as its parts might individually suggest. The nearest CPU rivals — the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (deltaPct 0), Intel Core i5-12450H (deltaPct 0.1), Intel Core i3-14100T (deltaPct -0.8), and Intel Core i3-13100F (deltaPct -1) — all have nearly identical average scores, meaning the 4600G is not gaining any meaningful CPU advantage over these alternatives in this workload. On the GPU side, the RX 7600 XT's nearest rivals include the RX 460 (deltaPct 0.3), RX 7600 (deltaPct -0.6), RTX 2060 SUPER (deltaPct 1.9), and RTX 3070 Mobile (deltaPct -1.9), showing that it is closely matched with a wide range of graphics cards from different generations and market segments.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 7600 XT brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory capacity is substantial for a flight simulator that streams extensive scenery data, and the 18 Gbps effective memory speed helps feed the 2,048 shading units. The GPU's boost clock reaches 2755 MHz, with a game clock of 2470 MHz and base clock of 1980 MHz. These clocks translate to a pixel rate of 176.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 352.6 GTexel/s, which are the raw throughput figures that determine how quickly the card can fill the screen with terrain and aircraft geometry. The FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS places this card in a capable tier for DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, which is relevant since the game supports modern rendering features. The GPU's 32 ray accelerators (RT cores) are present but flight simulators typically do not emphasize ray-traced effects, so their impact on measured FPS is likely minimal. The data shows a clear GPU bottleneck at 4K: dropping from High to Low at 3840x2160 improves FPS from 34.3 to 63.8, a gain of 29.5 FPS that is almost entirely attributable to reduced pixel shading load.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows 1080p Medium provides 82.3 FPS, which is the highest frame rate above the 60 FPS threshold at a quality preset above Low. This makes 1080p the most reliable resolution for smooth gameplay.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K?

A: At 4K, only the Low preset achieves a playable average of 63.8 FPS. Medium drops to 49.2 FPS, High to 34.3 FPS, and Ultra to 31.5 FPS, so 4K is only viable with significantly reduced visual quality.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance affect the game?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G scores 726 in 3DMark single-thread and 1,919 in Cinebench R23 single-core. These scores indicate adequate but not exceptional single-thread capability, which matters for flight simulators that often rely on a primary simulation thread.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between High and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High produces 47.2 FPS while Ultra produces 47.4 FPS — a negligible difference of 0.2 FPS, suggesting the GPU is hitting a similar performance ceiling regardless of the small additional load from Ultra settings.

Q: Is the 16 GB VRAM beneficial for this game?

A: The 16 GB GDDR6 memory is advantageous for handling large scenery and texture data, but the measured FPS drops at 4K (from 63.8 FPS at Low to 31.5 FPS at Ultra) indicate that raw memory bandwidth and shading throughput, not capacity, are the limiting factors.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This configuration ranks 1,180 out of 1,795 tested combos, placing it in the lower third of all systems measured in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent scaling pattern across all four settings presets when moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 103.4 at 1080p to 85.1 at 1440p (an 18.3 FPS reduction) and then to 63.8 at 4K (a further 21.3 FPS drop). This total reduction of 39.6 FPS from 1080p to 4K represents a 38.3% performance loss. At Medium settings, the progression is 82.3 → 62.6 → 49.2, a total drop of 33.1 FPS (40.2%). High settings show 59.1 → 47.2 → 34.3, totaling 24.8 FPS lost (42.0%). Ultra settings demonstrate 56.5 → 47.4 → 31.5, a total decline of 25.0 FPS (44.2%). The percentage loss increases as settings rise, which indicates that the GPU becomes progressively more saturated at higher quality levels. The relatively linear FPS drops between 1080p and 1440p, followed by steeper declines to 4K, point to the GPU as the primary limiting component — if the CPU were the bottleneck, the scaling between resolutions would be flatter because the CPU workload does not increase proportionally with resolution.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G provides 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 2 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz. This 4000-series processor, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, includes 8 MB of shared L3 cache, which is modest by modern standards. The CPU's Cinebench R23 scores of 1,919 single-core and 13,593 multi-core, along with a 3DMark single-thread score of 726, indicate that its per-thread performance is adequate but not class-leading. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its heavy reliance on single-thread performance for the main simulation loop, this CPU's single-core capability becomes a critical factor. The data supports this interpretation: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 103.4 FPS, but this is likely approaching the CPU's maximum frame delivery capability, as the GPU has ample headroom at this low resolution and settings level. The fact that 1080p Ultra (56.5 FPS) is only slightly lower than 1440p Ultra (47.4 FPS) — a 9.1 FPS difference despite a 2.25x increase in pixel count — suggests that at these higher settings, the GPU is the dominant constraint. The CPU's nearest rivals all have nearly identical average benchmark scores (within 1% deltaPct), indicating that swapping to a Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE or Core i3-13100F would not meaningfully change in-game performance. The 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are sufficient for this workload, though the PCIe Gen 3 interface with 20 lanes could theoretically limit data transfer from the GPU, but the measured FPS does not suggest this is a bottleneck in practice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce 103.4 FPS, Medium 82.3 FPS, High 59.1 FPS, and Ultra 56.5 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 23.2 FPS, which is larger than the gap between High and Ultra (2.6 FPS), suggesting that High-to-Ultra transitions add minimal cost relative to the Medium-to-High step.

At 2560x1440, the results drop to 85.1 FPS (Low), 62.6 FPS (Medium), 47.2 FPS (High), and 47.4 FPS (Ultra). Notably, Ultra slightly outperforms High by 0.2 FPS, which is within measurement noise and indicates that these two presets impose nearly identical loads at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the lowest results appear: Low yields 63.8 FPS, Medium 49.2 FPS, High 34.3 FPS, and Ultra 31.5 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is 14.9 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 2.8 FPS, again showing that the High-to-Ultra step has minimal impact relative to the Medium-to-High step. The 4K Low result of 63.8 FPS is the only 4K preset that maintains smoothness, while 4K Medium at 49.2 FPS is borderline and High/Ultra fall below 35 FPS. Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings provide the largest headroom, Medium offers the best balance, and High/Ultra cluster together at the bottom of the performance range.