Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 delivers a balanced 1080p and 1440p experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with 4K requiring settings compromises. This combination ranks in the 44th percentile of tested configurations for this title, indicating a system that handles the simulator’s demands competently but without top-tier headroom. The data shows a clear progression of frame rates across resolutions and presets, with the CPU’s six Zen 2 cores and the GPU’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory playing distinct roles in shaping performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the measured average FPS is 70. This is the lowest 1080p preset result, while High settings produce 74 FPS, Medium yields 98 FPS, and Low reaches 126 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: The combination ranks 1324 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the middle of the field, indicating it outperforms roughly 56% of tested configurations while trailing the top performers.

Q: What is the GPU’s VRAM capacity and how does it affect 4K performance?

A: The Radeon RX 7700 features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth rated at 624.1 GB/s. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 42 on Ultra to 75 on Low, showing that the ample VRAM does not eliminate the need for settings adjustments at this resolution.

Q: Which CPU benchmark scores are most relevant to this simulator?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G scores 13593 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1919 in single-core. For a flight simulator that relies on both physics and rendering threads, the multi-core score of 5709 in Cinebench R20 and the PassMark multithread score of 15992 indicate solid parallel processing capability.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Medium and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings produce an average of 79 FPS with a minimum of 67 and maximum of 91, while Ultra settings drop to 57 FPS average. This 22 FPS gap represents a 38.6% performance loss when moving from Medium to Ultra.

Q: Does the CPU’s integrated graphics affect the discrete GPU results?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G includes Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics, but the measured FPS data uses the discrete Radeon RX 7700. The integrated solution is not a factor in these results, as the dedicated GPU handles all rendering tasks.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is the primary rendering engine in this configuration, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip. Its 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units provide the computational foundation for Microsoft Flight Simulator’s complex scenery and lighting. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1900 MHz, with a game clock of 2041 MHz and a boost clock of 2459 MHz, allowing it to scale performance dynamically based on workload.

Memory configuration plays a critical role in this simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and aircraft data. The 16 GB GDDR6 frame buffer, accessed via a 256-bit bus, delivers 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This proves sufficient for the game’s demands, as evidenced by the measured FPS at 4K where the GPU remains the limiting factor. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the system achieves 75 FPS, but this drops to 59 FPS at Medium and 44 FPS at High. The Ultra preset at 4K yields only 42 FPS, showing that even with substantial VRAM, the GPU’s raw compute throughput constrains performance at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s 40 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are present in the hardware, though Microsoft Flight Simulator’s rendering pipeline does not heavily utilize these features in the measured presets. The pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s provide the fill rates necessary for dense environments, but the simulator’s draw calls and CPU-bound simulation logic often dictate performance floors. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 20974 and average benchmark score of 15852 place it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the Radeon RX 9060 (1% faster) and GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (1.7% faster). The RX 7700 trails the RX 9060 by 1% in average score, while leading the Radeon Pro W5500 by 1.1%.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G provides six physical cores and twelve threads based on the Zen 2 architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process. This Renoir chip operates at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts up to 4.20 GHz, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a flexible desktop processor, though its performance class sits below modern high-end offerings.

Microsoft Flight Simulator relies heavily on CPU performance for flight physics, weather simulation, and AI traffic. The processor’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13593 and single-core score of 1919 indicate balanced throughput. The 3DMark scores show scaling from 726 in single-thread tests to 4889 at max threads, with 8-thread performance at 4138. This scaling pattern suggests the CPU handles moderate thread counts effectively, which aligns with the simulator’s parallel workload distribution.

The CPU’s PassMark multithread score of 15992 and single-thread score of 2653 place it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, which scores 17482 (0.1% higher), and the Intel Core 7 150U at 17395 (0.6% lower). The Ryzen 3 8300GE scores 17614 (0.6% higher), while the Intel Core i3-14100T leads at 17648 (0.8% higher). These small deltas indicate that the 4600G sits in a tightly contested mid-range segment.

In this game, the CPU’s role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system reaches 126 FPS, which approaches the practical ceiling for the simulator’s engine. The single-thread performance, measured at 726 in 3DMark and 1919 in Cinebench R23, influences how quickly the game can process aircraft systems and environmental updates. The 12 threads help with the simulator’s background tasks, such as terrain loading and traffic management, preventing stutters even when frame rates fluctuate.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 5 4600G and Radeon RX 7700 achieves a rank of 1324 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it at approximately the 44th percentile, meaning 44% of tested configurations perform worse and 56% perform better. The ranking reflects a system that can run the game smoothly at 1080p and 1440p with appropriate settings, but it does not compete with high-end builds featuring newer CPUs and higher-tier GPUs.

The rank is influenced by both components’ strengths and weaknesses. The GPU’s 16 GB VRAM and modern RDNA 3.0 architecture provide strong rasterization performance, but the CPU’s Zen 2 cores from 2020 limit the system’s ability to feed the GPU at higher frame rates. The CPU’s 71st percentile ranking versus the GPU’s 58th percentile suggests that the processor is relatively stronger than the graphics card in this pairing, which means the GPU often becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Comparing to other combos in the database, this rank indicates that users can expect a playable experience with visual compromises at 4K. The measured FPS at 4K Ultra (42 FPS) falls below the 60 FPS threshold that many consider smooth, while 1440p Ultra (57 FPS) is close but not quite there. At 1080p, all presets exceed 70 FPS, making this resolution the most comfortable for this combination.

The rank also reflects the simulator’s unique demands. Unlike many games where GPU load dominates, Microsoft Flight Simulator’s CPU-intensive simulation means that the 4600G’s relatively modest single-core performance (726 in 3DMark single-thread) holds back the system in CPU-bound scenarios. This is evident in the small FPS gap between High and Ultra settings at 1080p (74 vs 70 FPS), which suggests diminishing returns from GPU settings when the CPU is near its limit.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how performance scales across resolutions, with the GPU becoming increasingly dominant as pixel count rises. At 1080p, the system delivers 126 FPS on Low settings, dropping to 98 FPS on Medium, 74 FPS on High, and 70 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 1440p reduces these numbers to 102 FPS (Low), 79 FPS (Medium), 60 FPS (High), and 57 FPS (Ultra). At 4K, performance falls further to 75 FPS (Low), 59 FPS (Medium), 44 FPS (High), and 42 FPS (Ultra).

The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a drop from 126 FPS to 75 FPS, a 40.5% reduction. For Ultra settings, the drop is from 70 FPS to 42 FPS, a 40% decrease. This consistent percentage loss across presets indicates that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions, as the rendering load scales proportionally with pixel count.

At 1080p, the CPU’s influence is more apparent. The difference between Low (126 FPS) and Ultra (70 FPS) is 56 FPS, showing that GPU settings significantly impact performance. However, the relatively small gap between High (74 FPS) and Ultra (70 FPS) suggests that the CPU begins to limit the system’s ability to leverage higher GPU settings. The simulator’s simulation logic runs at a fixed rate that cannot exceed certain thresholds, creating a ceiling around 70-75 FPS at 1080p regardless of GPU headroom.

The transition from 1440p to 4K is particularly telling. At Medium settings, 1440p produces 79 FPS while 4K yields 59 FPS, a 25.3% reduction. This aligns with the pixel count increase from 3.7 million to 8.3 million pixels, which is a 124% increase in rendering workload. The disproportionate FPS drop indicates that memory bandwidth and shading throughput become limiting factors at 4K, even with 16 GB of VRAM.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its strongest performance. Low settings achieve 126 FPS average, providing a smooth experience for users prioritizing frame rate. Medium settings drop to 98 FPS with a minimum of 84 and maximum of 113, offering a balance between visual quality and speed. High settings produce 74 FPS average, while Ultra settings yield 70 FPS. The 1080p results show that all presets are playable, with even the most demanding Ultra preset maintaining above 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance remains solid but requires more careful settings selection. Low settings deliver 102 FPS, which is excellent for a 1440p panel. Medium settings average 79 FPS with a minimum of 67 and maximum of 91, providing good responsiveness. High settings achieve 60 FPS exactly, hitting the standard refresh rate target. Ultra settings drop to 57 FPS, which may cause noticeable stutter on 60 Hz displays but remains playable on adaptive sync monitors.

At 3840x2160, the system’s limitations become evident. Low settings produce 75 FPS, making this the only 4K preset that consistently exceeds 60 FPS. Medium settings average 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 67, placing it borderline for smooth gameplay. High settings drop to 44 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 42 FPS. These lower frame rates at 4K indicate that users with 4K displays should expect to use Low or Medium settings for acceptable performance.

The Medium preset stands out as the only one with complete min/max data at all three resolutions. At 1080p, the range is 84 to 113 FPS; at 1440p, it is 67 to 91 FPS; at 4K, it is 50 to 67 FPS. This data shows that frame pacing is consistent, with no extreme outliers that would indicate stuttering or crashes.

Settings Recommendations

For 1080p displays, Ultra settings at 70 FPS provide the best visual experience without sacrificing smoothness. The 70 FPS average is above the 60 FPS threshold, and the simulator’s scenery benefits from the highest quality textures and effects. Users who prefer higher frame rates can drop to High settings for 74 FPS, though the visual difference between High and Ultra is minimal in this title. The Low preset at 126 FPS is excessive for most displays and sacrifices too much visual fidelity.

At 1440p, Medium settings offer the best balance with 79 FPS average and a minimum of 67 FPS. This provides a smooth experience with good visual quality. High settings at 60 FPS are also viable, especially for users with 60 Hz monitors, as the frame rate matches the refresh rate precisely. Ultra settings at 57 FPS are marginal; the slight dip below 60 FPS may cause perceptible judder on fixed refresh displays. Low settings at 102 FPS are ideal for competitive play or users who prioritize frame rate above all else.

For 4K displays, Low settings at 75 FPS are the recommended choice, as this is the only preset that consistently maintains high frame rates. Medium settings at 59 FPS are acceptable for users who can tolerate occasional drops below 60 FPS, as the minimum of 50 FPS remains within the VRR range of most modern monitors. High and Ultra presets at 44 and 42 FPS respectively are not recommended, as they fall well below the smoothness threshold and the visual improvements are not worth the performance penalty.

The data suggests that this combination is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can run the simulator at high or ultra settings with playable frame rates. At 4K, users must significantly reduce settings to achieve smooth performance, which diminishes the visual experience that makes the simulator appealing. For users with 4K displays, pairing this GPU with a stronger CPU might improve 1080p and 1440p performance, but the 4K results would remain GPU-limited.