Microsoft Flight Simulator

The measured data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT reveals a system that is consistently capable across resolutions, but with a clear hierarchy in settings that defines the optimal experience. The benchmark results show a spread from 51.7 FPS at 4K Ultra to 153.1 FPS at 1080p Low, indicating that the combo has broad performance headroom, yet the most balanced experience is found by matching the preset to the display's native resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The data indicates that the Medium preset provides the most balanced experience across all tested resolutions, delivering a substantial performance uplift over High and Ultra settings while maintaining a visually coherent simulation. At 1920x1080, Medium produces 117.8 FPS, which is 30.9 FPS higher than High (86.9 FPS) and a massive 32 FPS higher than Ultra (85.8 FPS). The jump from Medium to Low at 1080p yields 153.1 FPS, but this comes at the cost of visual fidelity that is likely too severe for a flight simulator where terrain and cockpit detail matter.

For 2560x1440, Medium again proves optimal with 95.4 FPS, comfortably above the 70 FPS achieved at Ultra and the 69.7 FPS at High. This suggests that Medium is not just a compromise but a sweet spot where the GPU's resources are allocated efficiently. At 3840x2160, Medium delivers 67.9 FPS, which is playable, while High (54.5 FPS) and Ultra (51.7 FPS) dip below the 60 FPS threshold, making them less ideal for smooth panning over dense scenery. The Low preset at 4K (86.9 FPS) is technically smooth but sacrifices the game's core visual appeal.

The data implies that Ultra settings are disproportionately demanding, offering only marginal gains over High in some cases (e.g., 85.8 vs 86.9 FPS at 1080p) while costing significant frame rates. For users with high-refresh-rate 1080p displays, Medium is the clear pick, as it nearly doubles the 4K Ultra frame rate. The recommendation is to prioritize Medium for consistent frame pacing, or drop to Low only if maximum frame rates are essential, as seen with the 124.1 FPS at 1440p Low.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, with its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, is the primary driver of the frame rate differences between settings at higher resolutions. The GPU's 72 ray accelerators and 4608 shading units, running at a boost clock of 2250 MHz, provide the raw compute needed for Microsoft Flight Simulator's complex rendering of terrain and weather. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is particularly relevant here, as the game's high-resolution textures and streaming world data are unlikely to exceed this buffer at 4K, preventing potential stutters from memory swapping.

The data shows that at 4K, the frame rate drops from 86.9 FPS at Low to 51.7 FPS at Ultra, a 40.5% reduction, which is a direct reflection of the GPU's workload scaling. The RX 6800 XT's 20.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is fully utilized at Ultra, where the 288 TMUs and 128 ROPs are pushed to their limits. Interestingly, the GPU's performance relative to its peers (87th percentile) suggests it is a high-tier part, yet the game still demands significant compromises at 4K, indicating that Microsoft Flight Simulator is exceptionally GPU-intensive at maximum settings.

The GPU's 16 Gbps effective memory speed and 256-bit bus width allow for fast data transfer, which is critical for the game's streaming of photogrammetry and satellite imagery. The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low, where the CPU likely limits the 153.1 FPS, but it becomes increasingly dominant as resolution scales, confirming its role as the key component for high-fidelity visuals.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic pattern of GPU-bound behavior, with the CPU's influence diminishing at higher resolutions. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 85.8 at 1080p to 70 at 1440p (an 18.4% decrease) and then to 51.7 at 4K (a 39.7% decrease from 1080p). This scaling is steeper than the pixel count increase, suggesting that the GPU's fill rate and shader complexity are the primary limits.

At Low settings, the scaling is more dramatic: 153.1 FPS at 1080p falls to 124.1 FPS at 1440p (a 19% drop) and then to 86.9 FPS at 4K (a 43.2% drop from 1080p). The larger absolute drops at Low settings indicate that the GPU has more headroom to work with, but the relative percentage drop is similar, confirming that the RX 6800 XT is the limiting factor even at lower visual quality.

The data shows that the CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is less of a constraint at 4K, as the frame rate differences between High and Ultra at 4K (54.5 vs 51.7 FPS) are minimal, suggesting the GPU is saturated. However, at 1080p Low, the 153.1 FPS result implies that the CPU's single-thread performance (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2365) is sufficient to feed the GPU, but the gap between 1080p and 1440p Low (29 FPS) hints that the CPU is still contributing to the overall frame time. This indicates a balanced system where the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck only past 1440p.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 1440p display?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 delivers 95.4 FPS, which is significantly higher than the 70 FPS at Ultra and 69.7 FPS at High, making it the recommended choice for smooth gameplay without sacrificing too much visual quality.

Q: Does the 16 GB VRAM of the RX 6800 XT prevent performance issues at 4K?

A: The data shows playable frame rates at 4K Medium (67.9 FPS), and the 16 GB memory capacity ensures that texture streaming does not cause frame drops, as evidenced by the consistent scaling from Low to Ultra settings.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Low compared to 4K Ultra?

A: The 1080p Low preset achieves 153.1 FPS, which is 101.4 FPS higher than the 51.7 FPS at 4K Ultra, representing a roughly threefold increase in frame rate.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: At 1080p Low, the 153.1 FPS result suggests the CPU (Ryzen 5 5600G) is near its limit, as the GPU has ample headroom. The 6-core, 12-thread processor with a 4.40 GHz boost clock appears to be the bottleneck at lower resolutions.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 4K with High settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with High settings is 54.5, which is below the 60 FPS target, indicating a need to drop to Medium for a smoother experience.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 613 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of all systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 613 out of 1795 tested systems places it in the 66th percentile, indicating that it outperforms a majority of configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking is notable given the CPU's modest 78th percentile standing among all CPUs, suggesting that the GPU is the primary contributor to the combo's overall position. The CPU's average benchmark score of 19983 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-11600H (19949, +0.2%) and Intel Core i7-11800H (20024, -0.2%), showing that the processor is not a differentiator.

The GPU, however, with an average benchmark score of 49982, is 0.5% ahead of the Intel Arc A550M (49737) and 2.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (48704), though it trails the NVIDIA RTX A1000 by 1.7% (50826). This places the RX 6800 XT in the 87th percentile among all GPUs, which is a strong position. The ranking implies that while the CPU is average, the GPU boosts the combo to a competitive standing, making it a viable option for high-fidelity flight simulation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, with 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, plays a supporting role in this combo. Its boost clock of 4.40 GHz and 16 MB of L3 cache provide adequate single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2365. The CPU's integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are irrelevant when paired with the discrete GPU, but its 65W TDP and 7 nm process suggest efficient operation.

The benchmark data for the CPU shows a multicore score of 16758 in Cinebench R23, which is modest compared to higher-core-count processors, but the game's reliance on single-thread performance is well-served. At 1080p Low, the 153.1 FPS result indicates that the CPU is the limiting factor, as the GPU is not fully utilized. However, the CPU's performance relative to its rivals, such as being 0.2% slower than the Intel Core i7-11800H, shows that it is not a weak link. The 12 threads allow for background tasks and streaming, but the data suggests that the CPU's role diminishes as resolution increases, where the GPU's 20.74 TFLOPS becomes the dominant constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS data is as follows, organized by resolution and settings:

1920x1080:

• Low: 153.1 FPS
• Medium: 117.8 FPS
• High: 86.9 FPS
• Ultra: 85.8 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 124.1 FPS
• Medium: 95.4 FPS
• High: 69.7 FPS
• Ultra: 70 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 86.9 FPS
• Medium: 67.9 FPS
• High: 54.5 FPS
• Ultra: 51.7 FPS

The data reveals that the gap between High and Ultra settings is minimal at 1080p (1.1 FPS) and 1440p (0.3 FPS), but widens slightly at 4K (2.8 FPS). This suggests that Ultra offers little benefit over High at lower resolutions, making High a more efficient choice if Medium is not preferred. The drop from Low to Medium is significant at all resolutions, averaging around 35 FPS, which shows the cost of enabling more detailed textures and effects. The 4K Low result of 86.9 FPS is identical to the 1080p High result, highlighting how resolution scaling can match settings changes. Overall, the data paints a picture of a system that is well-balanced for 1440p gaming, with 4K requiring Medium settings for a smooth experience.