Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the data for the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT reveals a system that shifts its bottleneck character dramatically depending on the resolution and quality preset selected. The measured frames per second (FPS) across the twelve tested configurations show that this pairing is capable of smooth, high-refresh-rate flight at 1080p, but it progressively becomes more dependent on the graphics card as pixel count rises, with the Ultra preset consistently taxing the GPU to its limits.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep, indicating that the RX 7800 XT is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU holds its ground at lower ones. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 140 at 1920x1080 to 120 at 2560x1440, a reduction of 20 frames, and then plunges to 88 at 3840x2160, which is a 37% decrease from the 1440p figure. This pattern shows that even at the lowest graphical load, the GPU is being pushed harder as resolution increases, but the 1080p result suggests the CPU is setting a ceiling there. Moving to High settings, the scaling is similar: 87 FPS at 1080p drops to 70 at 1440p and then to 52 at 4K, a 40% loss from 1440p to 4K that clearly demonstrates the graphics card struggling to fill the extra pixels.

The Ultra preset exhibits the most pronounced scaling penalty. The average FPS starts at 83 at 1080p, falls to 67 at 1440p, and bottoms out at 49 at 4K. The delta between 1440p and 4K here is 18 FPS, or roughly 27%, which is a slightly smaller percentage drop than on High settings, but the absolute numbers are much lower, making the 4K experience borderline for a flight simulator where smooth panning is critical. In contrast, the Medium preset shows a more linear decline: 116 FPS at 1080p, 93 at 1440p, and 69 at 4K, with the 4K result being 59% of the 1080p figure. This data implies that the GPU’s rendering load scales almost linearly with pixel count, but the CPU’s ability to feed it is not the bottleneck until the resolution drops to 1080p, where the 140 FPS Low result is likely near the CPU’s maximum frame output for this game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, with its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth, is clearly the workhorse for this title at higher resolutions. Its boost clock of 2430 MHz and game clock of 2124 MHz help drive the shading units, but the data shows that the card’s raw throughput is what determines the frame rates at 4K. The 49 FPS average at 4K Ultra is a strong indicator that the GPU is saturated, especially when compared to the 88 FPS at 4K Low, which is a 1.8x improvement purely from reducing graphical quality. This suggests that the 16 GB frame buffer is not the limiting factor—even at 4K Ultra, the card has enough memory—but rather the compute performance of the Navi 32 chip itself.

Interestingly, the GPU’s benchmark percentile versus all GPUs is 51, placing it in the middle of the pack, yet its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which are significantly older or lower-tier parts. The delta percentages are small (within 1.8%), which is misleading for gaming, as those rival cards would likely not achieve the same 4K results. The passmark G3D score of 24176 and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4157 provide a baseline, but the measured FPS in Flight Simulator shows that the RX 7800 XT is more than capable of handling 1440p Medium at 93 FPS, while 4K requires dropping to Low or Medium to stay above 60 FPS. The card’s 60 RT cores are present, but the data does not isolate ray tracing effects, so their impact on these specific FPS numbers cannot be quantified here.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture, running at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 at 1919 points, is modest compared to modern chips, and this appears to be the ceiling for high-FPS scenarios. At 1080p Low, the 140 FPS average is likely CPU-limited, as the GPU has plenty of headroom to render more frames, but the processor cannot issue draw calls fast enough. The 3DMark single-thread score of 726 and the Passmark single-thread score of 2653 both suggest that this CPU’s per-core strength is adequate for 60 FPS gaming but not for chasing 144 FPS in a simulation-heavy title like Flight Simulator.

The CPU’s L3 cache is 8 MB shared, which is small by modern standards, and its memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s, which is standard for dual-channel DDR4. These specs do not directly translate to the FPS data, but they explain why the CPU cannot keep up with the GPU at lower resolutions. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 4863 and the max-thread score of 4889 show that multi-threading is consistent, but the game’s reliance on a few main threads likely limits the benefit of the 12 threads. The CPU’s percentile versus all CPUs is 71, which is high, but its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100T and AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE, both of which have lower core counts, indicating that Flight Simulator does not scale perfectly with the 4600G’s core advantage. In essence, the CPU provides a solid foundation for 4K gaming where the GPU dominates, but it becomes the bottleneck when trying to unlock very high frame rates at 1080p.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to use for a balance of visual quality and performance?

A: According to the data, 2560x1440 on Medium settings offers 93 FPS average, which is smooth and visually detailed. At 1920x1080, High settings yield 87 FPS, while 4K drops to 52 FPS on High, making 1440p the sweet spot for this combo.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Yes, but with compromises. The data shows 4K Low runs at 88 FPS, and 4K Medium runs at 69 FPS, both playable. However, 4K High and Ultra drop to 52 and 49 FPS respectively, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many players prefer.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance at 1080p compared to 4K?

A: The CPU is more of a limiting factor at 1080p. At Low settings, 1080p achieves 140 FPS, but 1440p Low only drops to 120 FPS, and 4K Low is 88 FPS. The smaller gap between 1080p and 1440p on Low suggests the CPU caps the frame rate at 1080p, while the GPU takes over as the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Q: Is the RX 7800 XT’s 16 GB of VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The data does not show any VRAM-related stutters or crashes, and the FPS numbers are consistent across settings. Since 4K Ultra runs at 49 FPS without a min FPS recorded as null, it appears the 16 GB frame buffer is not exceeded, and the performance is limited by compute rather than memory capacity.

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

A: At 2560x1440, Ultra runs at 67 FPS average, while High runs at 70 FPS. The difference is only 3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s extra effects are not heavily taxing the GPU at this resolution, but the slight drop indicates some additional load.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo rank is 1262 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the 66th percentile of all systems. This indicates it performs better than average, but it is not a top-tier setup for this game, likely due to the CPU’s limitations at high frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

The ranking of 1262 out of 3714 total combos places this system in the upper third of all tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a respectable position, but it is important to note that the ranking does not differentiate between resolutions or settings, so it reflects overall capability across all tested scenarios. The data suggests that the GPU is strong enough to pull the system up in the rankings, especially at higher resolutions, but the CPU holds it back from reaching the top tier. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, which has a similar average benchmark score, but the 4600G’s higher core count does not translate to a significantly better gaming experience in this title. The GPU’s percentile of 51 is lower than the CPU’s 71, yet the GPU dominates the FPS at 4K, meaning the ranking is likely influenced more by the GPU’s ability to handle high resolutions than the CPU’s raw compute. If the goal is a smooth 60 FPS experience at 1440p, this combo achieves it on Medium and High settings, which is a strong result for a mid-range pairing.

Settings Recommendations

For the best measured experience, the data points to 2560x1440 on Medium settings as the optimal balance, delivering 93 FPS average with a minimum of 79 FPS, ensuring fluid gameplay even in complex scenery. If the user prefers 1080p, High settings at 87 FPS is a solid choice, but Medium at 116 FPS offers a much higher refresh rate with only a modest visual quality reduction. At 4K, the only playable options are Low at 88 FPS or Medium at 69 FPS, but the latter provides a better visual experience while staying above 60 FPS. Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as the average FPS drops to 83 at 1080p, 67 at 1440p, and 49 at 4K, with the 4K result being below the playable threshold for most users. For users with high refresh rate monitors, 1080p Low at 140 FPS is the clear winner, but the visual compromise may not be worth it for a simulator that relies on scenery detail. The measured data indicates that the GPU has enough headroom to handle Medium presets at 1440p, making that the default recommendation for a quality versus performance trade-off.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 140 on Low to 83 on Ultra. Low achieves 140 FPS, Medium drops to 116 FPS with a minimum of 98 and a maximum of 133 FPS, High sits at 87 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 83 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 24 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 4 FPS, showing diminishing returns at the top end. Moving to 2560x1440, Low runs at 120 FPS, Medium at 93 FPS (min 79, max 107), High at 70 FPS, and Ultra at 67 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra shrinks to 3 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is becoming the bottleneck. At 3840x2160, Low yields 88 FPS, Medium 69 FPS (min 59, max 79), High 52 FPS, and Ultra 49 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 19 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 3 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are nearly free in terms of FPS at 4K, but the base load is so high that the card cannot maintain 60 FPS. The min FPS values are only provided for Medium settings, with 98 FPS at 1080p, 79 FPS at 1440p, and 59 FPS at 4K, which are all within 10-15% of the averages, showing consistent frame pacing. The max FPS for Medium are 133, 107, and 79 respectively, indicating that the system can spike higher but settles into a stable range. Overall, the data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is CPU-bound at low settings, 1440p is balanced, and 4K is firmly GPU-bound.