Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

Microsoft Flight Simulator places exceptional demands on both processor and graphics hardware, and the measured data for the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT illustrates a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination produces 102.6 FPS, which drops to 80.8 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 59.1 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 21.3% performance reduction when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a 26.9% reduction from 1440p to 4K. The scaling pattern suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting, while the GPU becomes increasingly dominant at higher pixel counts.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution reveals how the graphics card responds to increasing shader and memory pressure. At 1080p, the difference between Low (102.6 FPS) and Ultra (56.3 FPS) is 46.3 FPS, a substantial 45.1% drop. At 1440p, the spread narrows slightly: Low produces 80.8 FPS while Ultra yields 45.8 FPS, a 43.3% reduction. At 4K, the range tightens further, with Low at 59.1 FPS and Ultra at 32.6 FPS, representing a 44.8% decrease. The consistency of this percentage drop across resolutions indicates that the graphics card's compute resources are being saturated in a predictable manner, regardless of pixel count.

Interestingly, the High and Ultra presets produce nearly identical results at 4K — 32.2 FPS versus 32.6 FPS respectively. This near-parity suggests that at 3840x2160, the rendering pipeline is hitting a hard limit, likely related to the 8 GB GDDR6 memory capacity and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The RX 6600 XT's pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s and texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s are simply insufficient to differentiate between these two demanding presets when pushing over 8 million pixels per frame. Meanwhile, the jump from Medium (44.9 FPS) to High (32.2 FPS) at 4K is a steep 28.3% drop, indicating that High preset introduces specific effects that disproportionately impact this GPU.

The data positions this combo as one where 1080p gaming is the sweet spot, with 1440p being playable at Medium settings, and 4K requiring Low settings to approach 60 FPS. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, based on the Zen 3 architecture, provide sufficient single-thread performance — evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2584 — to avoid becoming the primary constraint at higher resolutions. Instead, the GPU's RDNA 2.0 architecture with 2048 shading units becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases, a classic sign of a mid-range graphics card paired with a capable budget processor.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 + RX 6600 XT combo capable of 60 FPS at 1080p in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Yes, at Medium settings the combo delivers 75.5 FPS, and at Low settings it reaches 102.6 FPS. However, at High settings it drops to 58.3 FPS, and Ultra yields 56.3 FPS, both just below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the most consistent resolution, with all four presets ranging from 56.3 FPS (Ultra) to 102.6 FPS (Low). At 2560x1440, only Low settings exceed 60 FPS, and at 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to other GPUs in the benchmark database?

A: The GPU holds a 71st percentile ranking among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27985. It performs nearly identically to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which scores 27956 (0.1% behind), and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 27883 (0.4% behind).

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 4K resolution?

A: No, the data suggests the opposite. At 3840x2160, the performance gap between Low (59.1 FPS) and Ultra (32.6 FPS) indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's single-thread performance, reflected in a 3DMark single-thread score of 882, is sufficient to feed the GPU even at lower resolutions.

Q: What preset offers the best balance between visual quality and frame rate?

A: At 1080p, Medium settings at 75.5 FPS provides a 34.8% improvement over High settings while still maintaining a smooth experience. At 1440p, Medium at 61.5 FPS is the only non-Low preset to stay above 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank against all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1346 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 75th percentile of all combos tested. This indicates it outperforms roughly three-quarters of the configurations in the database for this specific title.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database's measured results for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 with AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT combination achieves a rank of 1346 out of 1795 tested combos. This places the pairing in the 75th percentile, meaning it outperforms 449 of the 1795 configurations tested. The rank reflects the combined capabilities of both components in this specific flight simulator, which is known for its demanding rendering of terrain, weather, and complex scenery.

The CPU component, the Ryzen 5 5600, holds a 79th percentile ranking among all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 21765. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon D-1746TER, scores 21635 (0.6% behind), while the AMD EPYC 9554P scores 21899 (0.6% ahead). The Ryzen 5 5600's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18309 and single-core score of 2584 indicate strong performance for a 6-core, 12-thread processor, though the 32 MB shared L3 cache and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are more modest.

The GPU, the Radeon RX 6600 XT, ranks in the 71st percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 27985. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, scores 27956 (0.1% behind), while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 scores 28238 (0.9% ahead). The RX 6600 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but show limitations at 4K.

The disparity between the CPU's 79th percentile and the GPU's 71st percentile, combined with the combo's 75th percentile overall rank, suggests that the graphics card is the constraining factor in this pairing. The data indicates that upgrading the GPU would likely yield greater performance gains in Microsoft Flight Simulator than upgrading the CPU, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU workload becomes more intensive.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 102.6 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all resolutions and presets. Medium settings yield 75.5 FPS, a 26.4% reduction from Low. High settings drop to 58.3 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 56.3 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is minimal at just 2.0 FPS (3.4%), suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects have diminishing returns at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down predictably. Low settings achieve 80.8 FPS, still comfortably above 60 FPS. Medium settings produce 61.5 FPS, right at the threshold for smooth gameplay. High settings drop to 44.7 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 45.8 FPS. Notably, Ultra outperforms High at this resolution by 1.1 FPS (2.4%), which is unusual and may indicate measurement variance or specific scene-dependent behavior in the flight simulator.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become apparent. Low settings achieve 59.1 FPS, just below 60 FPS. Medium settings drop to 44.9 FPS, a 24.0% reduction from Low. High settings produce 32.2 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 32.6 FPS. The near-identical performance between High and Ultra at 4K (a difference of just 0.4 FPS) points to the 8 GB memory buffer becoming a bottleneck, as both presets likely require more graphics memory than is available.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from Low to Ultra follows a consistent pattern: Medium settings typically offer the best compromise, with frame rates that are 26-34% lower than Low but substantially higher than High or Ultra. The largest single drop occurs at 4K between Medium (44.9 FPS) and High (32.2 FPS), a 28.3% reduction that suggests High preset enables effects that disproportionately tax the GPU's 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing smooth gameplay, the data indicates that Low settings at 1920x1080 provide the most headroom, with 102.6 FPS. However, this preset sacrifices much of the visual fidelity that makes Microsoft Flight Simulator immersive. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 75.5 FPS, which is 26.4% lower than Low but still well above the 60 FPS target, and likely offers substantially improved visual quality through better textures and lighting.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings at 61.5 FPS is the only non-Low preset that maintains a frame rate above 60 FPS. Users with 1440p monitors should strongly consider this combination, as it provides a 34.6% improvement over Low settings' 80.8 FPS while still staying playable. High and Ultra at 1440p both fall below 46 FPS, which may cause noticeable stuttering in a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is critical.

For 4K displays, the recommendation is more constrained. Low settings at 59.1 FPS is the only preset that approaches 60 FPS, but it may require significant visual compromises. Medium at 44.9 FPS is playable but not ideal, while High (32.2 FPS) and Ultra (32.6 FPS) are likely too choppy for a satisfying experience. Users with 4K displays should consider reducing resolution to 1440p and using Medium settings for a better balance.

The optimal configuration across all measured data points is 1920x1080 with Medium settings, delivering 75.5 FPS. This represents a 25.4% improvement over the 1440p Medium result of 61.5 FPS, while maintaining the same preset quality. For users who can tolerate lower visual fidelity, 1440p Low at 80.8 FPS offers higher resolution with acceptable frame rates. The data clearly shows that the RX 6600 XT's 8 GB memory capacity is best utilized at 1080p, where the Medium preset provides sufficient headroom for the GPU to operate efficiently without memory pressure.