Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 brings six cores and twelve threads to Microsoft Flight Simulator, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. This is a Zen 3 (Vermeer) part built on a 7 nm TSMC process, and its 32 MB shared L3 cache is substantial for a chip in this class. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows a clear split between single-threaded and multi-threaded capability: the 3DMark single-thread score is 882, while the max-threads score reaches 5659. Cinebench R23 results reinforce this pattern, with a single-core score of 2584 and a multi-core score of 18309.

For a flight simulator, the single-thread performance matters disproportionately. The simulation loop — physics, flight dynamics, weather systems — tends to serialize on one or two threads, and the data supports that the Ryzen 5 5600's single-core strength is what carries the experience. The CPU's percentile rank against all CPUs is 79, placing it in the upper quintile of processors tested. Its average benchmark score is 21765, which puts it nearly exactly between the Intel Xeon D-1746TER (21635, 0.6% slower) and the AMD EPYC 9554P (21899, 0.6% faster). The closest desktop rival is the Intel Core i7-11700F at 21957, which edges ahead by 0.9%. These deltas are tiny — within a single percent — meaning the Ryzen 5 5600 is effectively neck-and-neck with those parts in raw compute, despite being a much simpler six-core design than the EPYC server chips.

What does this mean for the game? At 1080p with Low settings, the combo hits 173.6 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra it still manages 107.1 FPS. The CPU's boost clock of 4.40 GHz is likely the key enabler here, since flight simulators rarely scale perfectly with core count beyond a certain point. The fact that the CPU holds its own against the EPYC 9554P (which has vastly more cores) in average score suggests that single-thread efficiency, not core count, is the dominant factor in this title.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a substantial graphics card built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, with a 5 nm process and 45,900 million transistors. It runs at a base clock of 2340 MHz and boosts to 2610 MHz, paired with 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). With 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, this is a card designed for high-resolution rendering, and its 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores hint at headroom for ray tracing and DLSS workloads.

In the benchmark hierarchy, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48704. Its nearest rivals are all within a couple of percent: the NVIDIA CMP 50HX scores 49071 (0.7% higher), the Intel Arc A550M scores 49737 (2.1% higher), while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (47915) and RTX A1000 Mobile (47743) trail by 1.6% and 2.0% respectively. These are all professional or mobile parts, so the comparison is a bit unusual, but it does indicate that the 4070 Ti SUPER is not near the top of the absolute GPU leaderboard — it's a strong upper-midrange card rather than a halo product.

How does this translate to Microsoft Flight Simulator? The measured FPS at 4K Ultra is 65.7, which is playable but not silky smooth. At 4K Low, it jumps to 112 FPS, showing that the GPU has raw headroom when the load is reduced. The 16 GB VRAM is worth noting: flight simulators with high-resolution terrain textures and aircraft models can consume large amounts of memory, and 16 GB GDDR6X should prevent VRAM-related stuttering at 4K Ultra, where the data shows 65.7 FPS is still being maintained.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER ranks 228th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the top 12.7% of all configurations tested for this game — a strong showing for a mid-range CPU paired with an upper-midrange GPU. The rank is likely determined by the CPU's single-thread performance and the GPU's ability to push high frame rates at demanding resolutions.

To contextualize: the CPU's nearest rivals are within 1% in average score, and the GPU's rivals are within 2%, so the combo's rank is not driven by a single dominant component. Instead, it's the balance that matters. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 173.6 FPS, which is high enough that the CPU becomes the limiting factor — the GPU could likely push even more frames if the simulation thread allowed it. At 4K Ultra, the 65.7 FPS result is more GPU-bound, as the rendering load scales with resolution. The rank of 228 suggests that most of the 1795 combos above it feature either a faster CPU for the simulation thread or a faster GPU for the rendering pipeline, but very few achieve both simultaneously at this price-performance tier.

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

Starting at 1080p, the data shows a wide spread across settings. Low produces 173.6 FPS, Medium drops to 149.3 FPS, High yields 113.9 FPS, and Ultra brings 107.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 66.5 FPS, or about 38% — a significant but not overwhelming penalty for maxing out the visual quality at this resolution.

Moving to 1440p, the pattern shifts. Low hits 156.9 FPS, Medium scores 119.5 FPS, High reaches 91.8 FPS, and Ultra lands at 85.7 FPS. The step from Medium to High is particularly steep here — a 27.7 FPS drop — while High to Ultra is only 6.1 FPS. This suggests that the High preset is hitting a sweet spot where additional settings provide diminishing returns.

At 4K, the numbers compress further. Low yields 112 FPS, Medium produces 86.8 FPS, High achieves 68.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 65.7 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 3 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily loaded and the Ultra preset's extra effects barely move the needle. The 4K Low result of 112 FPS is remarkable — it shows that even at the highest resolution, the combo can deliver smooth frame rates when settings are reduced.

FAQ

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator with this combo?

A: The data suggests it depends on resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, 173.6 FPS indicates the CPU's single-thread performance (boost clock 4.40 GHz, 3DMark single-thread score 882) is likely the ceiling, as the GPU isn't stressed at that load. At 4K Ultra, 65.7 FPS points to GPU limitation, since the rendering load scales with resolution while the simulation thread's work stays roughly constant.

Q: How much FPS do you lose going from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, 1080p yields 173.6 FPS and 4K yields 112 FPS — a drop of 61.6 FPS. At Medium, 149.3 FPS drops to 86.8 FPS, a loss of 62.5 FPS. At High, 113.9 FPS falls to 68.7 FPS, losing 45.2 FPS. At Ultra, 107.1 FPS goes to 65.7 FPS, a 41.4 FPS reduction. The percentage loss is larger at lower settings, indicating the GPU becomes relatively more limiting at higher resolutions.

Q: Is 16 GB of VRAM useful for this game?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth. Given that 4K Ultra maintains 65.7 FPS, the VRAM capacity appears sufficient for the game's high-resolution textures and terrain data, as there are no reported min-FPS spikes in the data that would suggest VRAM swapping.

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

A: It ranks 228th out of 1795 combos, placing it in the top 12.7% of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU's percentile rank is 79, and the GPU's is 86, so both components are above average, with the GPU having a slight edge in relative standing.

Q: What's the difference between High and Ultra settings at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, the difference is 6.8 FPS (113.9 vs 107.1). At 1440p, it's 6.1 FPS (91.8 vs 85.7). At 4K, it's just 3.0 FPS (68.7 vs 65.7). The diminishing returns become more pronounced at higher resolutions, where the GPU's workload is already substantial.

Q: Does the CPU's 6-core/12-thread configuration hold the GPU back?

A: Not significantly, based on the data. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18309 is solid, and its single-core score of 2584 is strong. At 1080p Low, 173.6 FPS suggests the CPU is doing its job, and the GPU is the more likely limiter at higher resolutions and settings.

Settings Recommendations

The data points to a clear recommendation for most users: High settings provide the best balance of visual quality and frame rate across all resolutions. At 1080p, High yields 113.9 FPS, which is smooth and leaves headroom for dips. At 1440p, High gives 91.8 FPS — still above 60 FPS and visually rich. At 4K, High produces 68.7 FPS, which is playable, and the step to Ultra only costs 3 FPS while adding minimal visual benefits, so High is the pragmatic choice.

For users prioritizing maximum frame rates, Low settings at any resolution deliver well above 100 FPS (173.6 at 1080p, 156.9 at 1440p, 112 at 4K). This is sensible for competitive or high-refresh-rate scenarios, though flight simulators rarely need such high frame rates. Medium settings offer a middle ground: 149.3 FPS at 1080p, 119.5 at 1440p, and 86.8 at 4K — all comfortably smooth.

Ultra settings are harder to justify. At 4K, Ultra only delivers 65.7 FPS, which is below the 70+ FPS threshold many consider ideal for a smooth experience, and the visual difference from High is negligible per the data. At 1080p and 1440p, Ultra (107.1 and 85.7 FPS respectively) is fine but not meaningfully better than High in terms of playability. The recommendation is to stick with High unless you specifically want to max out visuals and are willing to accept frame rates in the 65-85 FPS range.

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 a consistent pattern across all settings. At Low, the drop is from 173.6 to 112 FPS — a 35.5% reduction. At Medium, 149.3 falls to 86.8, a 41.9% loss. At High, 113.9 drops to 68.7, a 39.7% decrease. At Ultra, 107.1 goes to 65.7, a 38.7% decline. The consistency of these percentages — all in the 35-42% range — indicates that the GPU is handling the resolution scaling in a predictable, linear fashion.

What does this tell us about the limiting component? At 1080p, the frame rates are high enough (107-174 FPS) that the CPU's single-thread performance (boost 4.40 GHz, 3DMark single-thread 882) is likely the primary constraint — the simulation loop can't feed the GPU fast enough to push even higher. As resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows (more pixels to fill, more memory bandwidth consumed), and the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 16 GB VRAM and 672.3 GB/s bandwidth become the determining factor. The fact that the percentage drop is similar across all settings suggests that the GPU's scaling is consistent, and the CPU is not becoming a bottleneck at higher resolutions — it's simply that the GPU's raw throughput limits the absolute frame rate.

The 4K Low result of 112 FPS is particularly telling. It shows that when the GPU's workload is minimized (Low settings), the combo can still push over 100 FPS at 4K, meaning the CPU can keep up even at high resolution. The bottleneck at 4K Ultra (65.7 FPS) is therefore purely a GPU rendering limitation, not a CPU simulation bottleneck. This is a well-balanced pairing: the CPU provides enough single-thread headroom for the simulation, and the GPU delivers adequate rendering power, with neither component dramatically outclassing the other. The 228th rank out of 1795 combos reflects this equilibrium — it's not a top-tier setup, but it's a highly capable one that handles all resolutions and settings without a clear weak link.