Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + AMD Radeon RX 9070

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance rank of this CPU+GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 598th out of 1,795 tested combinations, placing it in the top third of all configurations measured for this title.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G scores 17,489 on average. This is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17,482, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12450H (17,475, 0.1% ahead). It trails the Intel Core i3-14100T by 0.8% and the Intel Core i3-13100F by 1%, both of which score slightly higher.

Q: What is the best measured average FPS across all tested settings?

A: The highest average FPS is 139.2, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average is 51.5 FPS at 3840x2160 with High settings.

Q: Does raising settings from High to Ultra always lower performance?

A: Yes, in every resolution tested. At 1080p, High yields 91.6 FPS while Ultra drops to 85.3 FPS. At 1440p, the gap is smaller: 72.1 FPS on High versus 71.6 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, High delivers 51.5 FPS and Ultra delivers 52.8 FPS, a slight exception where Ultra is marginally faster.

Q: How does the GPU's average benchmark score compare to its closest competitors?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 averages 34,780. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA A2 (34,866) and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34,677). The AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541) and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (34,511) are 0.7% and 0.8% slower, respectively.

Q: What memory specifications does the GPU bring to this title?

A: The RX 9070 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2518 MHz, translating to 20.1 Gbps effective.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the primary driver of frame rates in this configuration, though the CPU's capabilities set boundaries. The GPU's 16 GB VRAM is substantial for a flight simulator, which often loads large texture sets for terrain and aircraft. The 644.6 GB/s bandwidth allows rapid streaming of these assets, which is critical when flying over complex scenery at speed.

Clock behavior shows a base of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 2070 MHz, and a boost of 2520 MHz. The spread between base and boost is wide, indicating the card can scale heavily under load. In this title, the measured results suggest the GPU sustains high clocks at lower resolutions but may throttle back at 4K where the pixel throughput demand rises. The 36.13 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 564.5 GTexel/s texture rate provide ample compute headroom for the simulation's rendering pipeline.

The GPU's pixel rate of 322.6 GPixel/s is notable. At 4K, the frame buffer requires roughly 8.3 million pixels per frame, and at 51.5 FPS on High settings, the card is pushing approximately 428 million pixels per second. This aligns with the card's rated pixel throughput, suggesting the GPU is near its fill-rate limit at that resolution. At 1080p, the pixel demand is a quarter of that, which explains why the card can deliver 139.2 FPS on Low settings without approaching its pixel ceiling.

The RDNA 4.0 architecture with 3,584 shading units and 128 ROPs directly influences geometry and rasterization. Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy draw calls for terrain and buildings benefit from the 224 texture mapping units, which handle anisotropic filtering and texture lookups. The 56 ray tracing cores are present but this title's measured data does not isolate ray tracing effects; the benchmark rows reflect standard rasterization performance.

The GPU's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface ensures ample bandwidth to the CPU, though the Ryzen 5 4600G only supports PCIe Gen 3. This mismatch could create a bottleneck for data transfer, but the measured FPS shows the system still performs competitively. The 220 W TDP and dual-slot cooler suggest sustained load capability, which matters for long flight sessions where thermals can degrade performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers clear guidance for different priorities. For maximum frame rate, the Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers 139.2 FPS, which is the fastest any setting achieves. This is the best choice for competitive or high-refresh-rate displays, though visual fidelity suffers.

For balanced performance, Medium at 1440p provides 99.8 FPS, which remains above 60 FPS while offering moderate visual improvements over Low. This preset is the sweet spot for most users with 1440p monitors. At 1080p, Medium hits 124.1 FPS, which is still fluid and visually richer than Low.

For visual quality, High at 1080p yields 91.6 FPS, while High at 1440p drops to 72.1 FPS. Both are playable on standard 60 Hz displays. The Ultra preset at 1080p gives 85.3 FPS, which is only 6.3 FPS slower than High, making Ultra a viable choice for users who want maximum detail without a severe penalty. At 1440p, Ultra and High are nearly identical (71.6 vs 72.1 FPS), so Ultra is the better pick there.

At 4K, the situation changes. High delivers 51.5 FPS, which is borderline for smooth play. Ultra gives 52.8 FPS, marginally better, but both sit below 60 FPS. Medium at 4K reaches 70.1 FPS, which is the recommended preset for 4K because it maintains playability while improving over Low's 89.3 FPS. The data shows that on this hardware, 4K users should start at Medium and only move to High/Ultra if they accept frame rates in the low 50s.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full preset range is available. Low produces 139.2 FPS, Medium 124.1 FPS, High 91.6 FPS, and Ultra 85.3 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 15.1 FPS, a 10.8% drop. From Medium to High, the loss is 32.5 FPS, a 26.2% reduction. High to Ultra costs 6.3 FPS, a 6.9% drop, which is the smallest penalty between consecutive presets. This indicates that the High-to-Ultra transition is less demanding relative to the Medium-to-High step.

At 2560x1440, Low delivers 125 FPS, Medium 99.8 FPS, High 72.1 FPS, and Ultra 71.6 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 25.2 FPS (20.2%). Medium-to-High falls by 27.7 FPS (27.8%). High-to-Ultra is nearly flat, with only a 0.5 FPS difference, suggesting that at 1440p, the Ultra preset's additional effects are not taxing the GPU further, likely due to a CPU bottleneck emerging.

At 3840x2160, Low reaches 89.3 FPS, Medium 70.1 FPS, High 51.5 FPS, and Ultra 52.8 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 19.2 FPS (21.5%). Medium-to-High falls 18.6 FPS (26.5%). Interestingly, High-to-Ultra gains 1.3 FPS, a statistical anomaly within measurement variance but consistent across the pattern seen at 1440p. At 4K, the GPU is clearly the limiting component, as the absolute frame rates drop sharply from 1440p.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent performance cost across presets. At Low, FPS drops from 139.2 to 125, a reduction of 10.2%. Medium falls from 124.1 to 99.8, an 19.6% decline. High drops from 91.6 to 72.1, a 21.3% reduction. Ultra goes from 85.3 to 71.6, a 16.1% loss. The larger percentage drops at Medium and High indicate that these settings are more sensitive to pixel count, while Low's smaller drop suggests the CPU is more involved at lower settings.

From 1440p to 4K, the scaling is steeper. Low falls from 125 to 89.3, a 28.6% drop. Medium drops from 99.8 to 70.1, a 29.8% reduction. High goes from 72.1 to 51.5, a 28.6% loss. Ultra moves from 71.6 to 52.8, a 26.3% decline. These near-uniform percentage drops across all presets point to the GPU becoming the dominant limiter at 4K. The pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, yet the FPS does not drop to a quarter of the 1080p value. For instance, High at 1080p is 91.6 FPS, and at 4K it is 51.5 FPS, which is 56.2% of the 1080p number, not 25%. This indicates that the system is not purely fill-rate bound; the CPU's single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 726) still contributes to frame pacing even at 4K.

The data reveals that the largest FPS loss occurs between 1440p and 4K at Medium settings, where the 29.8% drop is the steepest of any resolution transition. This suggests that Medium preset at 4K stresses the GPU's memory bandwidth (644.6 GB/s) more heavily relative to the CPU's ability to feed it. Conversely, the smallest proportional loss between 1440p and 4K is at Ultra (26.3%), implying that the Ultra preset's additional load is already saturating the GPU at 1440p, so the extra pixels at 4K have a diminished marginal effect. This pattern confirms that the RX 9070 is the limiting component at higher resolutions, while the Ryzen 5 4600G's six cores and 12 threads (with a 75th percentile CPU rank) keep the system balanced at 1080p where GPU headroom exists.