Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal a clear pattern: Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily GPU-bound at 4K with this combination, while the scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a more balanced workload. At 1080p High, the combo produces 51.7 FPS; moving to 1440p High drops that to 42.4 FPS, and at 4K High it falls to 30.1 FPS. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is roughly 18%, but the jump to 4K represents a further 29% decline, indicating the Radeon RX 6600's 8 GB frame buffer and 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth become the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

The Low preset tells a different story. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 95.2 FPS, which is nearly double the 4K Low result of 56.6 FPS. This wide gap suggests that at lower settings, the CPU (AMD Ryzen 5 5500 with 6 cores and 12 threads) has enough headroom, but the GPU's pixel throughput and texture rate start to constrain performance as resolution climbs. The 4K Low figure of 56.6 FPS is actually higher than the 1440p Ultra result of 43.4 FPS, which underscores how much the settings preset, rather than resolution alone, dictates the bottleneck.

Ultra settings amplify the scaling problem. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 53 FPS, which is only slightly above the 4K High result of 30.1 FPS. The 4K Ultra figure of 27.9 FPS is the lowest measured, and it represents a 47% drop from 1080p Ultra. This behavior indicates that the GPU's 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs are pushed to their limits when both resolution and quality settings peak simultaneously. The data shows that users targeting 4K should expect playable frame rates only on Low or Medium presets, with Medium yielding 43.1 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 operates with a base clock of 1626 MHz, a game clock of 2044 MHz, and a boost clock of 2491 MHz. These clocks, combined with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, produce a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this bandwidth becomes critical because the game streams vast amounts of terrain and photogrammetry data. The benchmark results show that at 4K Medium, the combo achieves 43.1 FPS, which is 13 FPS lower than at 4K Low. This gap reflects the increased texture and geometry load that saturates the memory subsystem.

The GPU's FP32 performance of 8.928 TFLOPS and texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s are modest by current standards, and the data confirms that the RX 6600 sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 890M, has an average benchmark score of 25246, essentially identical to the RX 6600's 25235 (deltaPct of 0). This means the RX 6600 is competitive with integrated graphics in synthetic tests, but in Flight Simulator, the dedicated 8 GB VRAM provides a tangible advantage. The 4K High result of 30.1 FPS, while low, is still ahead of what the 890M would likely achieve given its similar compute score but shared memory architecture.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) is relevant, as Flight Simulator leverages DX12 features. However, the PassMark DirectX 12 score of 51 is notably lower than the DirectX 11 score of 152, suggesting that the RDNA 2.0 architecture's DX12 path is not fully optimized for this title. This explains why the Ultra preset at 1080p (53 FPS) is barely better than High at 4K (30.1 FPS) — the GPU is spending cycles on compute-heavy effects rather than pure rasterization.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance between visual fidelity and frame rate is the Medium preset at 1440p, which delivers 55.4 FPS. This is the only settings/resolution combination that exceeds 55 FPS while retaining medium-quality visuals, and it does so without approaching the 95.2 FPS ceiling of 1080p Low, which suggests the CPU is not the limiting factor at that point. For users prioritizing smoothness, 1080p Medium at 70.8 FPS is the best choice, as it stays well above the 60 FPS threshold while offering better textures than Low.

The High preset is a viable option only at 1080p, where it produces 51.7 FPS. At 1440p High, the frame rate drops to 42.4 FPS, which is playable but not ideal for a flight simulator where smooth camera pans are essential. The Ultra preset should be avoided entirely: even at 1080p, it yields only 53 FPS, which is barely above High at the same resolution, and the visual gains are marginal given the 46% performance drop from Medium to Ultra at 1080p (70.8 to 53 FPS). The data clearly shows that Ultra is not worth the cost on this hardware.

The Low preset offers the highest frame rates across all resolutions, with 95.2 FPS at 1080p and 56.6 FPS at 4K. However, the visual degradation in a game like Flight Simulator, where cockpit readability and terrain detail matter, makes Low a fallback only for competitive or testing scenarios. The recommended configuration is Medium at 1440p, balancing the 55.4 FPS result with the improved visual quality over Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are: Low 95.2, Medium 70.8, High 51.7, and Ultra 53. Note the anomaly where Ultra (53) slightly exceeds High (51.7) — this could indicate variance in the simulation's dynamic weather or traffic, but the data as recorded shows this inversion. The 1080p results span a wide range, from 95.2 down to 51.7, a 46% spread, which demonstrates that the CPU and GPU can sustain high frame rates when settings are lowered, but the GPU becomes the constraint as quality rises.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 75.9, Medium 55.4, High 42.4, and Ultra 43.4. Again, Ultra (43.4) edges out High (42.4) by a small margin. The 1440p Medium result of 55.4 FPS is the standout, as it maintains a playable frame rate with a moderate quality setting. The 1440p Low figure of 75.9 FPS shows that even at a higher resolution, the combo can produce smooth performance when the GPU load is reduced.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 56.6, Medium 43.1, High 30.1, and Ultra 27.9. The 4K results are uniformly below 60 FPS, with only Low reaching a playable 56.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 13.5 FPS, which is larger than the gap between Medium and High (13 FPS), suggesting that texture quality has a disproportionate impact on the GPU's memory bandwidth at this resolution. The Ultra preset at 4K (27.9 FPS) is effectively unplayable for smooth flight.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 + AMD Radeon RX 6600 combination ranks 1447 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 20% of all combinations, which aligns with the measured frame rates — the combo struggles to maintain 60 FPS at any settings except 1080p Low. The ranking reflects the GPU's 69th percentile standing and the CPU's 79th percentile standing, indicating that the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing. The CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12500, has an average benchmark score of 20897, a deltaPct of -0.1% versus the Ryzen 5 5500's 20875, meaning the two CPUs are virtually identical in compute performance. However, the GPU's rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, has a deltaPct of 0.5% higher average score (25120 vs 25235 for the RX 6600), which is a negligible difference in synthetic tests but could translate to a few FPS in real-world gaming.

The rank of 1447 out of 1795 is below the median, and the data shows that most combos outperform this setup in Flight Simulator. This is expected given the RX 6600's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus, which are undersized for a simulation game that scales heavily with resolution and texture detail. The combo's performance at 4K Ultra (27.9 FPS) is particularly weak, placing it in the bottom quartile of 4K results.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Yes, but only on Low settings, where it achieves 56.6 FPS. Medium yields 43.1 FPS, High drops to 30.1 FPS, and Ultra is 27.9 FPS, all below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this setup?

A: The data shows 1440p Medium at 55.4 FPS is the sweet spot, offering the highest resolution with a playable frame rate. 1080p High is also viable at 51.7 FPS, but 1440p Medium provides more detail.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo hits 95.2 FPS, suggesting the CPU (Ryzen 5 5500, 6 cores, 12 threads) is sufficient. The GPU (RX 6600) becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings, as seen in the 46% drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low.

Q: Why does Ultra perform similarly to High at 1080p?

A: The measured data shows Ultra at 53 FPS and High at 51.7 FPS at 1080p, a negligible 1.3 FPS difference. This suggests the GPU's compute resources are saturated, and the extra Ultra effects do not improve visuals enough to justify the frame rate cost.

Q: How does this combo compare to the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The RX 6600's average benchmark score is 25235, while the RTX 3060 Ti scores 25120, a deltaPct of 0.5% in favor of the RX 6600. In Flight Simulator, this difference is within measurement noise, but the RX 6600's 8 GB VRAM may limit 4K textures more than the RTX 3060 Ti.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM enough for this game?

A: At 1080p and 1440p, the 8 GB frame buffer is adequate, as shown by the 70.8 FPS at 1080p Medium. At 4K with higher presets, the frame rates drop sharply (30.1 FPS at High), indicating the VRAM capacity and bandwidth are stressed.

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. It has a 16 MB L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation engine, including physics, AI traffic, and weather calculations. The benchmark data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo reaches 95.2 FPS, which is the highest measured frame rate across all configurations. This indicates that the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data at lower settings, and the limiting factor is not the processor but the GPU's ability to render.

The CPU's average benchmark score of 20875 places it at the 79th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-12500, scores 20897 with a deltaPct of -0.1%, meaning the Ryzen 5 5500 is essentially equal in compute performance. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16429 and single-core score of 2319 show that the processor has solid single-threaded performance, which is crucial for Flight Simulator's main thread. The 3DMark single-thread score of 836 further confirms that the CPU can handle the game's primary simulation logic.

However, the data also reveals that the CPU is not the bottleneck at higher resolutions. From 1080p Low (95.2 FPS) to 1440p Low (75.9 FPS), the frame rate drops by 20%, which is consistent with GPU load rather than CPU limitations. The 4K Low result of 56.6 FPS is still above the 4K Medium figure of 43.1 FPS, showing that the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to keep the simulation running smoothly even when the GPU is the limiting factor. The PassMark multithread score of 19330 and physics score of 896 indicate that the CPU has enough headroom for the game's background tasks, but the lack of a higher core count (e.g., 8 cores) does not appear to penalize this title based on the measured results.