Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this pairing of an AMD Ryzen 5 5500 with an AMD Radeon RX 580 lands in a very specific, challenging position. The measured data places this combination at rank 1676 out of 1795 tested combos, putting it in the bottom 7% of all systems tested for this game. That ranking alone tells a story of a system built for broader productivity or lighter gaming, now facing the immense rendering load of a flight simulator that streams terrain, weather, and aircraft systems simultaneously. The data shows a configuration that can run the game, but the experience is heavily dependent on settings and resolution, with very little headroom for visual fidelity at higher display sizes.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1676 out of 1795 tested combinations is a stark indicator of where this hardware sits in the hierarchy for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is not a mid-pack result; it is a bottom-decile placement that suggests the system is fundamentally limited by both the processor and the graphics card when handling this specific workload. The CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 5500, holds a percentile of 79 against all CPUs, indicating it is a reasonably capable processor in general terms. However, its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-12500 and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE, show nearly identical average benchmark scores (20897 and 20900 respectively), with delta percentages of -0.1, meaning the 5500 is essentially tied with them in synthetic tests. This suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in the ranking, but rather that the GPU is dragging the overall combo down.

The GPU, an AMD Radeon RX 580, sits at the 53rd percentile against all GPUs, which is an average-to-low position. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 and GTX 950, with delta percentages of 0 and 0.1, respectively, showing that the RX 580 is performing right in line with those older cards. When you combine a mid-tier CPU with a lower-tier GPU, the result is a system that struggles to maintain playable frame rates in a simulation that is notoriously heavy on both components. The data implies that while the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU in many scenarios, the RX 580 simply cannot process the complex geometry and textures fast enough to push this combo up the rankings. This is a case where the whole is less than the sum of its parts due to the extreme demands of the game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580’s role in this combo is defined by its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a double-edged sword for Microsoft Flight Simulator. On one hand, 8 GB is enough to hold the high-resolution textures the game uses at 1080p and even some at 1440p, preventing constant streaming from system memory. On the other hand, the memory clock runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), which is not particularly fast by modern standards, and the overall bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s becomes a limiting factor when the game requests large amounts of terrain data at once.

The GPU’s compute capabilities, with 2304 shading units and a boost clock of 1340 MHz, deliver a peak FP32 performance of 6.175 TFLOPS. This raw number puts it in a range where it can handle DirectX 12 titles, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s rendering pipeline is exceptionally demanding on pixel fill rate and texture filtering. The RX 580’s pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s are modest, and the data shows this in the measured FPS. At 1080p High settings, the combo only manages 30 FPS, which is a direct reflection of the GPU struggling to process the scene. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game’s needs at most settings, but the core clock speeds and shader throughput are the real bottlenecks, making the GPU the dominant limiting factor in this pairing.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured frame rates, the data strongly suggests that Low settings are the only viable option for a smooth experience, and even then, resolution must be considered. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 54.2 FPS, which is the only result in the entire dataset that approaches a universally playable threshold for a flight simulator. This should be the baseline recommendation for any user seeking fluidity over visual fidelity. The jump to Medium settings at 1080p drops the average to 40.7 FPS, which is still playable but begins to show stutter in busy airspace, while High and Ultra settings at 1080p fall to 30 and 28.4 FPS, respectively, which are marginal at best.

For those willing to accept lower frame rates for better visuals, the data shows that High settings at 2560x1440 yield 24.5 FPS, which is not smooth but can be tolerated for slow, scenic flights. Ultra settings at any resolution are effectively unusable, with the best case at 1080p being 28.4 FPS and dropping to 16.1 FPS at 4K. The recommendation is clear: prioritize Low settings to maintain a consistent 50+ FPS experience. If you must increase quality, Medium at 1080p is the absolute ceiling for a playable experience, sacrificing frame rate for a modest visual improvement. The data shows no scenario where Ultra settings provide an acceptable frame rate for this hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern across all resolutions, with performance scaling almost linearly with settings. Starting at 1920x1080, the combo delivers 54.2 FPS on Low, which drops to 40.7 on Medium, 30 on High, and 28.4 on Ultra. This shows a steep decline from Low to Medium, a 25% drop, but a shallower curve from High to Ultra, indicating that the GPU is already saturated. Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers shift down significantly: 41.3 FPS on Low, 32.6 on Medium, 24.5 on High, and 23.9 on Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p on Low settings is about 24%, but the drop on High settings is only 18%, suggesting that at higher settings, the CPU begins to play a more significant role in limiting performance.

At 4K (3840x2160), the results are the most telling. The combo manages 33.7 FPS on Low, which is impressive for such a demanding resolution, but this falls to 25 on Medium, 18.7 on High, and a barely playable 16.1 on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is over 50%, showing that the RX 580’s memory bandwidth is severely strained at this resolution. The data shows that the jump from 1440p to 4K on Low settings is a 18% performance loss, but on Ultra settings, it is a 33% loss. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU’s 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is a critical bottleneck, and the CPU cannot compensate for the lack of raw fill rate.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No, the data shows that the maximum average FPS achieved is 54.2 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No measured configuration reaches 60 FPS, so a 60 FPS target is not realistic with this hardware.

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this combo?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the only resolution that provides consistently playable frame rates. At 2560x1440, only Low settings exceed 40 FPS, and at 4K, even Low settings drop to 33.7 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 has an average benchmark score of 20875, which is within 0.2% of its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i5-12500 (20897) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE (20900), indicating near-identical synthetic performance.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM on the RX 580 help with this game?

A: The 8 GB of GDDR5 memory is sufficient for the game’s textures at most settings, but the memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is a limiting factor, especially at 4K where the data shows a significant FPS drop.

Q: What is the most playable settings preset?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 with Low settings at 54.2 FPS is the only preset that provides a consistently smooth experience. Medium at 1080p (40.7 FPS) is acceptable, but any higher settings result in sub-30 FPS.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more responsible for the low ranking?

A: The GPU appears to be the primary bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 79th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 53rd percentile. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (54.2) suggests the CPU can push frames, but the GPU limits higher settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it performs admirably, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16429 and a single-core score of 2319. These numbers place it in a strong position for general gaming, and its 16 MB of L3 cache helps with latency-sensitive tasks. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for calculating flight physics, AI traffic, and terrain streaming, which are heavily threaded tasks. The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this combo, as the frame rates drop significantly when settings are increased, indicating a GPU bottleneck.

However, the CPU’s role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 54.2 FPS, which is likely close to the CPU’s limit for this game, given that the same CPU with a stronger GPU would likely achieve higher frame rates. The nearest rivals show that the 5500 is not outperforming its peers, with a delta of -0.1% compared to the Intel Core i5-12500, so there is no hidden headroom here. The data implies that while the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU at low settings, it would still cap performance around 60 FPS in this title due to the game’s complex simulation logic, meaning that even a GPU upgrade would not yield massive gains without a CPU upgrade as well.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data shows a clear pattern of diminishing returns as pixel count increases. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drop across all settings is approximately 24%, which is expected given the 78% increase in pixel count. However, the drop from 1440p to 4K is much steeper, with an average loss of 35% across all settings, despite the pixel count only doubling. This nonlinear scaling is a hallmark of a GPU that is running out of memory bandwidth. The RX 580’s 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is simply unable to feed the shader units efficiently at 4K, causing the frame rate to collapse.

The data shows that on Low settings, the FPS drops from 54.2 at 1080p to 41.3 at 1440p (a 24% loss) and then to 33.7 at 4K (an 18% loss from 1440p). This suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is still a limiting factor at 1080p, but the GPU becomes the sole bottleneck at 4K. Conversely, on Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 28.4 at 1080p to 23.9 at 1440p (a 16% loss) and then to 16.1 at 4K (a 33% loss). This steeper drop at Ultra settings indicates that the GPU’s texture units are overwhelmed, and the memory bandwidth cannot keep up with the high-resolution textures. The takeaway is that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, as the performance penalty for moving to higher resolutions is disproportionately large, especially at higher quality presets.