Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 combination produces a playable but constrained experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a CPU with six cores and twelve threads, base clock of 3.70 GHz, and boost clock of 4.20 GHz from the Zen 2 architecture. This processor sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17507. The chip’s 3DMark results show a single-thread score of 726 and a 16-thread score of 4863, indicating modest per-core performance that matters for a simulation title that relies heavily on single-threaded physics and scenery generation. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13593 and single-core score of 1919 place it within striking distance of several rivals: the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE scores 0.1% higher on average, while the Intel Core i3-14100T is 0.8% higher. These deltas are small enough that the 4600G is not clearly disadvantaged, but the processor’s L3 cache of 8 MB shared is a limiting factor for a game that streams vast terrain data.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

Microsoft Flight Simulator is notorious for its dependence on CPU single-thread performance, and the Ryzen 5 4600G’s specifications support that observation. The processor’s base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost of 4.20 GHz are modest by 2020 standards, and the 3DMark single-thread score of 726 reflects this. In the measured FPS data, the gap between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p is substantial: Low produces 83 FPS average while Ultra drops to 46 FPS, a 37 FPS difference. This spread is not purely GPU-driven because the GTX 1070’s own benchmarks show it is only at the 47th percentile among GPUs, with an average score of 9780. The CPU’s 12 threads help with background tasks and scenery loading, but the 6 cores are not heavily utilized in this title; instead, the game’s engine tends to stress one or two threads heavily. The PassMark single-thread score of 2653 and the Geekbench single-core score of 1460 both indicate that the 4600G is adequate but not exceptional for this workload. Notably, the CPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, scores 0.1% higher on average, meaning the 4600G is effectively at parity with a lower-tier part in synthetic tests. For flight simulation, the clock speed matters more than core count, and the 4.20 GHz boost is the ceiling the game can use. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (83 FPS) versus 4K Low (49 FPS) shows a 34 FPS drop, which is mostly GPU-bound, but at 1080p Medium (64 FPS) versus 1080p Ultra (46 FPS) the CPU’s inability to feed the GPU at higher settings becomes apparent.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Ryzen 5 4600G and GTX 1070 ranks 3069 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower 17% of all configurations. This rank is a direct consequence of both components being mid-range or older: the CPU sits at the 71st percentile but the GPU is at the 47th percentile, and the game’s engine is demanding on both. The data shows that the combo’s 1080p High average of 48 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider smooth for a flight sim, and the 4K Ultra average of 27 FPS is barely interactive. Compared to other combos in the database, the 3069th rank means there are 645 configurations that perform worse, but the vast majority of tested systems outperform this pairing. The GTX 1070’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks—the AMD FirePro W5000 (-0.2%) and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (-0.5%)—are workstation parts that do not reflect gaming performance, so the GPU’s true competition is older GeForce cards. The combo’s rank is also influenced by the CPU’s lack of a dedicated game cache; the 8 MB L3 is shared across all cores, and flight sim’s asset streaming can cause hitches. In practice, the 3069th rank means users will need to lower settings or resolution to maintain playable framerates, and the measured data confirms this: only the 1080p Low setting (83 FPS) and 1440p Low (67 FPS) provide headroom above 60 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average is 83 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 67 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, so the only way to exceed 60 FPS is to use Low presets at 1080p or 1440p.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G has a 3DMark single-thread score of 726 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1919. Since Microsoft Flight Simulator relies heavily on single-threaded physics and scenery generation, these scores predict the CPU will be a bottleneck at higher settings, which is why 1080p Ultra (46 FPS) is barely better than 1440p Ultra (37 FPS).

Q: Is the GTX 1070 sufficient for 4K resolution in this game?

A: No. The 4K Ultra average is 27 FPS, and 4K High is 29 FPS. Even 4K Low only reaches 49 FPS, so the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 256.3 GB/s bandwidth are not enough to maintain smooth framerates at this resolution without dropping to the lowest preset.

Q: What is the difference between Medium and High settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Medium produces 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS, while High drops to 48 FPS average. This 16 FPS difference shows that High settings impose a significant load on the combo, likely due to increased draw distance and object density that tax both CPU and GPU.

Q: How does this combo compare to the CPU’s closest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G’s average benchmark score of 17507 is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17482) and 0.6% higher than the Intel Core 7 150U (17395). It is 0.8% lower than the Intel Core i3-14100T (17648). These differences are negligible, so the CPU is not the primary differentiator in the combo’s rank.

Q: Which resolution provides the most balanced experience?

A: The 2560x1440 Medium setting yields 52 FPS average with a minimum of 44 FPS and maximum of 60 FPS. This is the only Medium preset that stays close to 60 FPS, and it offers better visual quality than 1080p Low while remaining playable, unlike 4K Medium which drops to 38 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of how this combo scales across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 83 FPS average, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. Medium at 1080p drops to 64 FPS with a minimum of 55 FPS and maximum of 74 FPS, showing that the frame time variance is moderate. High at 1080p falls to 48 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 46 FPS. This 37 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p indicates that the settings have a strong impact on performance, but the difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, suggesting the game’s Ultra preset adds little visual benefit for the cost.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset produces 67 FPS average, which is a 16 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium at 1440p yields 52 FPS with a minimum of 44 FPS and maximum of 60 FPS, and High drops to 39 FPS. Ultra at 1440p is 37 FPS, nearly identical to High’s 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 30 FPS, which is slightly smaller than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 49 FPS, Medium drops to 38 FPS (with a minimum of 32 FPS and maximum of 44 FPS), High falls to 29 FPS, and Ultra is 27 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is only 22 FPS, which is the smallest difference across all resolutions, confirming that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution.

The data also reveals a pattern: at 1080p, the CPU’s single-thread limitations cap Ultra at 46 FPS, but the GPU can still push Low to 83 FPS. At 4K, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 256.3 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for High and Ultra settings, resulting in sub-30 FPS averages. The Medium preset at each resolution provides the most consistent frame times, with the 1440p Medium showing a 44-60 FPS range that is acceptable for flight simulation.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is a Pascal architecture card with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1506 MHz with a boost of 1683 MHz, and it has 1920 shading units. The card’s PassMark G3D score of 13498 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1082 place it at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, meaning it is below average in the database. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role becomes dominant at higher resolutions. The 4K High average of 29 FPS and 4K Ultra of 27 FPS are below playable thresholds, and even 4K Low only reaches 49 FPS. This is because the game renders vast landscapes with high-resolution textures, and the GTX 1070’s 8 GB VRAM is filled quickly at 4K, causing texture streaming to compete with frame rendering.

At 1440p, the GPU is still a significant constraint, as evidenced by the 67 FPS Low versus 37 FPS Ultra spread. The 30 FPS difference is larger than the 22 FPS spread at 4K, which suggests that at 1440p the CPU can still feed the GPU at Low settings, but Ultra settings overwhelm the card’s compute resources. At 1080p, the GPU is less of a bottleneck, and the CPU’s single-thread performance becomes the limiting factor for High and Ultra presets. The GTX 1070’s memory bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s is adequate for 1080p and 1440p but insufficient for 4K, where the game’s streaming engine demands more data throughput. The card’s FP32 performance of 6.463 TFLOPS is modest, and the game’s physics and weather simulation are not heavily GPU-accelerated, so the CPU handles those tasks while the GPU focuses on rendering. The measured data shows that the GPU’s end-of-life status (released in 2016) is reflected in its inability to maintain 60 FPS at any resolution above 1080p Low.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the user’s resolution and tolerance for frame rate dips. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset provides 64 FPS average with a minimum of 55 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and smoothness. The Low preset at 1080p offers 83 FPS but sacrifices too much visual fidelity for a flight sim that relies on scenery readability. High at 1080p drops to 48 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target, and Ultra at 46 FPS is not worth the extra performance cost over High. For 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the only viable option for smooth gameplay, delivering 52 FPS average with a minimum of 44 FPS. The Low preset at 1440p achieves 67 FPS, but the visual downgrade is severe. High and Ultra at 1440p are both below 40 FPS, making them unsuitable for sustained flight.

For 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS, and the best option is Low at 49 FPS average. Medium at 4K drops to 38 FPS, and High and Ultra are below 30 FPS, which is too choppy for a simulation where precise control is needed. The data suggests that users with a 4K display should either drop to 1440p or accept Low settings. The Medium preset at each resolution provides the most stable frame times, as indicated by the minimum FPS values: 55 FPS at 1080p, 44 FPS at 1440p, and 32 FPS at 4K. These minimums are closer to the averages than the High or Ultra presets, which have no min/max data but likely exhibit more variance. In summary, the recommended preset is Medium for 1080p and 1440p, and Low for 4K, based on the measured rows.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the shifting bottlenecks in this combo. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 83 at 1080p to 67 at 1440p (a 19% decrease) and then to 49 at 4K (a 27% decrease from 1440p). This scaling is roughly proportional to the pixel count increase, which indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at Low settings. The GTX 1070’s GPU compute score of 6102 and its 8 GB VRAM are being saturated as resolution increases, and the card cannot maintain the same frame throughput.

At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 64 at 1080p to 52 at 1440p (a 19% decrease) and then to 38 at 4K (a 27% decrease from 1440p). The scaling is similar to Low, but the absolute values are lower, suggesting that the GPU is still the primary constraint. At High settings, the FPS drops from 48 at 1080p to 39 at 1440p (a 19% decrease) and then to 29 at 4K (a 26% decrease from 1440p). The consistent percentage drops across all settings indicate that the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution above 1080p.

However, at 1080p, the CPU becomes the bottleneck for High and Ultra settings. The 1080p High average of 48 FPS is only 2 FPS higher than 1080p Ultra’s 46 FPS, which is a negligible difference. This plateau suggests that the CPU’s single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 726) cannot feed the GPU with enough draw calls to increase FPS beyond this point. The 1080p Low average of 83 FPS shows that the CPU can handle low-complexity scenes, but as settings increase, the CPU’s 8 MB L3 cache and 4.20 GHz boost clock become insufficient. The 1440p Low average of 67 FPS is 16 FPS lower than 1080p Low, which is a larger drop than the pixel count alone would suggest, indicating that the GPU is starting to limit even at Low settings. Overall, the data shows that the GPU is the dominant limiter at 1440p and 4K, while the CPU limits at 1080p High and Ultra. This analysis is supported by the combo’s rank of 3069 out of 3714, which places it in the lower quartile of tested systems.