Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a notoriously demanding title, and the combination of an AMD Ryzen 5 4600G with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 places this system in a specific performance tier. The measured data shows a configuration that is capable of smooth flight at lower resolutions and settings, but which struggles significantly when pushed to 4K. With a combo rank of 1450 out of 1795 tested configurations, this pairing sits in the lower-middle portion of the database, indicating that while it is playable, it is far from the top of the performance curve. The data reveals a system where the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU's capabilities become more relevant at 1080p.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, but the rate of that scaling tells a story about where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 93.6 FPS, which is a highly playable frame rate for a flight simulator. Moving to 1440p at the same Low settings drops the average to 73.1 FPS, a reduction of roughly 22%. However, the jump to 4K at Low settings results in a much steeper decline to 54.7 FPS, representing an additional 25% drop from the 1440p figure.

This pattern becomes more pronounced when examining higher quality presets. At High settings, the frame rate falls from 54.3 FPS at 1080p to 44.4 FPS at 1440p, and then plummets to 29.1 FPS at 4K. The 4K result is just barely above the threshold of what is considered playable, and it highlights a significant performance cliff. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly harsh, with a 34.5% performance loss at High settings, compared to a 18.2% loss when going from 1080p to 1440p.

The data strongly indicates that the GeForce RTX 2060, with its 6 GB of VRAM and 192-bit memory bus, is the limiting component at resolutions of 1440p and above. The frame rate drops are far more severe when the pixel count increases, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. At 1080p, the system is less constrained, allowing the Ryzen 5 4600G's six cores and twelve threads to keep up with the GPU's output. The result is that 1080p offers a much wider range of usable settings, while 1440p and 4K are only really viable at lower quality presets.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is built on the Turing architecture and operates with a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. It features 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, paired with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. This memory configuration provides a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, which is a significant factor in how the card handles the high-resolution texture data that Microsoft Flight Simulator streams. The GPU's pixel rate is 80.64 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 201.6 GTexel/s, figures that are modest by modern standards but were respectable for the card's launch period.

The benchmark results show the RTX 2060 achieving an average score of 16074 and sitting at the 58th percentile of all GPUs. This places it in the mid-range tier, and its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7600S, which is 0.5% faster, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, which is 1.7% slower. These are very small margins, indicating that the RTX 2060's performance is well-established and understood. In the context of this game, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM capacity appears to be a critical constraint. At 4K Ultra settings, the frame rate drops to 29.3 FPS, which suggests that the card is not only struggling with the computational load but may also be hitting memory capacity limits, causing the simulator to swap textures.

The role of the GPU in this pairing is clear: it is the dominant factor in determining playability at higher resolutions. The 12.90 TFLOPS of FP16 performance and 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are not sufficient to maintain high frame rates at 4K with demanding settings. Even at 1440p, the card is only able to deliver 44.4 FPS on High settings, which is on the edge of smooth gameplay for a simulator that benefits from consistent frame pacing. The data suggests that the RTX 2060 is best utilized at 1080p, where its performance allows for high settings and frame rates above 50 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate this system can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average frame rate is 93.6 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is 4K resolution playable with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The data shows 4K is only marginally playable at Low settings, with an average of 54.7 FPS. At Medium, High, and Ultra settings, the average frame rates drop to 43.1, 29.1, and 29.3 FPS respectively, which are below the smoothness threshold for most users.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its closest rivals in the benchmark database?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 16074. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S is 0.5% faster, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and AMD Radeon Pro 5700 are both 1.7% slower.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields an average of 73.1 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields 42.2 FPS. This represents a performance cost of roughly 30.9 FPS for the higher visual quality.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at any resolution?

A: At 1080p, the system achieves a High preset average of 54.3 FPS, which is close to the 4K Low preset result of 54.7 FPS. This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is becoming more of a factor, as the GPU is not as heavily loaded with pixel work.

Q: What is the system's overall rank among tested configurations for this game?

A: This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 holds a rank of 1450 out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the 81st percentile of all tested systems.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this system depends heavily on the target resolution. For users with a 1080p display, the High preset is the best balance, offering an average of 54.3 FPS. This is a significant improvement over the Medium preset's 71.3 FPS in visual fidelity while still maintaining a playable frame rate. The Ultra preset at 1080p yields 53.7 FPS, which is almost identical to High, so the slight performance cost is negligible, making Ultra a viable option for those who prioritize maximum visual detail on a 1080p screen.

At 1440p, the situation changes. The High preset averages 44.4 FPS, which may be acceptable for some, but the Medium preset offers a much safer margin with 56.2 FPS. For a smoother experience that avoids stuttering during complex scenery loads, the Medium preset is the recommended choice at this resolution. The Low preset at 1440p achieves 73.1 FPS, which is excellent but sacrifices too much visual quality for a simulator where terrain and cockpit detail are important.

For 4K, the data indicates that the system is not well-suited for high-quality settings. The Low preset is the only one that delivers a consistently playable experience, with an average of 54.7 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 43.1 FPS, and both High and Ultra fall below 30 FPS, which is generally considered too choppy for a smooth flight experience. Therefore, 4K users should stick to the Low preset or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a better visual trade-off.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average frame rates measured for this system across all tested resolutions and settings presets.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 93.6 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 71.3 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 54.3 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 53.7 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 73.1 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 56.2 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 44.4 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 42.2 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 54.7 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 43.1 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 29.1 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 29.3 |

The data shows a consistent hierarchy, with Low settings always providing the highest frame rate and Ultra the lowest. The gap between Medium and High is more pronounced at 1440p and 4K, indicating that the High preset introduces a significant load on the GPU. The near-identical results for High and Ultra at 4K (29.1 vs 29.3 FPS) are notable, suggesting that the Ultra preset may be hitting a hard performance ceiling, possibly due to VRAM limitations, where additional quality settings no longer have a measurable impact on frame rate because the system is already saturated.