Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G + AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT combo rank in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 650th out of 1,795 tested combinations in the database, placing it in the upper third of all tested systems for this title.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160 with Low settings, it reaches 85.7 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 46.4 FPS at the same resolution.

Q: How much performance difference is there between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 149.9 FPS, while Ultra settings deliver 85 FPS — a difference of roughly 65 FPS between the extremes.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: The data suggests the GPU becomes the primary constraint at 4K, as FPS drops significantly (from 149.9 at 1080p Low to 85.7 at 4K Low), while the CPU's 6-core/12-thread configuration remains consistent across resolutions.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon RX 7800 XT sits at the 76th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32,619.

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600G is at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,983.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the dominant component in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, the card has substantial bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s, which proves critical for a flight simulator that loads vast terrain and scenery data. The GPU's boost clock of 2430 MHz and game clock of 2124 MHz provide the raw throughput needed to handle the game's complex rendering workloads.

The RX 7800 XT's RDNA 3.0 architecture with 3,840 shading units and 60 ray accelerators positions it well for modern rendering demands. Its FP32 performance of 37.32 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s indicate strong fill-rate capabilities, which matter for the dense geometry and high-resolution textures common in flight simulation. The card's 76th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms its above-average standing, though its nearest rivals — the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 at +0.2% and the AMD FirePro S10000 at +0.7% — show that competition at this tier is tight.

The 16 GB VRAM capacity is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game can aggressively consume memory for high-resolution terrain and aircraft models. At 4K Ultra settings, the combo still manages 46.4 FPS, suggesting the GPU's memory subsystem is sufficient even under maximum load. The GPU's 263 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate a power-hungry but manageable card, though the data shows no thermal throttling issues affecting the measured results.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-limited scaling as resolution increases. At Low settings, the combo delivers 149.9 FPS at 1920x1080, dropping to 119.3 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 85.7 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 43% reduction in FPS from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, which is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where pixel throughput becomes the bottleneck.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is even more dramatic: 85 FPS at 1080p, 67.3 FPS at 1440p, and 46.4 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is less than a third of the 1080p Low result, showing how both resolution and quality settings compound to strain the GPU. The difference between 1440p and 4K at Ultra is 20.9 FPS, while the difference between 1080p and 1440p at Ultra is 17.7 FPS — indicating that the GPU's performance degradation accelerates as pixel count grows.

Interestingly, the gap between High and Ultra settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, High delivers 84.4 FPS versus Ultra's 85 FPS (essentially identical), while at 4K, High delivers 51 FPS versus Ultra's 46.4 FPS. This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU or other system components may be limiting performance before the GPU reaches its full potential, whereas at 4K, the GPU is clearly the primary constraint.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 650 out of 1,795 tested combinations places it in the 64th percentile of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a solid mid-to-upper-tier result, though not exceptional. The ranking reflects the balance between the CPU's 78th percentile standing and the GPU's 76th percentile, with the combination performing slightly better than either component individually might suggest.

The CPU's nearest rivals — the Intel Core i7-11600H at +0.2% and the Intel Core i7-11800H at -0.2% — show that the Ryzen 5 5600G is competitively positioned in raw compute tasks. The GPU's nearest rivals similarly cluster closely, with the NVIDIA P104-100 at -0.4% and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile at -0.7%, indicating that the RX 7800 XT is neither a standout nor a laggard in its performance class.

Given that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for demanding both CPU and GPU resources, this combo's rank suggests it handles the game's mixed workload competently. The 650th position out of 1,795 means roughly two-thirds of tested systems perform better, which is reasonable for a mid-range CPU paired with an upper-mid-range GPU.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 16 MB of L3 cache and 512 KB L2 per core provide adequate memory hierarchy for flight simulation workloads, which often involve complex physics calculations and AI traffic management. The CPU's 7 nm process node and 65 W TDP make it an efficient part of the system.

The CPU's benchmark results show a strong single-thread score of 2,365 in Cinebench R23 and a multicore score of 16,758, placing it at the 78th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-11600H, scores nearly identically at 19,949 versus 19,983 average, a delta of just 0.2%. This indicates the 5600G is well-balanced for games that rely on both single-thread performance and multi-thread scaling.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's 12 threads handle the game's simulation logic, while the GPU manages rendering. The fact that 1080p High (84.4 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (85 FPS) produce nearly identical results suggests the CPU may be limiting performance at lower resolutions, as the GPU has headroom that cannot be fully utilized. However, the CPU's 3dmark scores — 5,451 for 16 threads and 872 for single-thread — confirm it has enough compute power to avoid severe bottlenecks in most scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers a wide range of performance depending on settings: Low produces 149.9 FPS, Medium 117.4 FPS, High 84.4 FPS, and Ultra 85 FPS. The near-identical High and Ultra results at 1080p are notable, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features do not significantly impact performance at this resolution, likely due to CPU limitations.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 119.3 FPS, Medium 90.1 FPS, High 67.9 FPS, and Ultra 67.3 FPS. The High and Ultra results remain close, but the gap between Low and Ultra widens to 52 FPS. The 1440p results show a more pronounced GPU influence, with each settings tier delivering progressively lower FPS in a more linear fashion.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops further: Low 85.7 FPS, Medium 65.3 FPS, High 51 FPS, and Ultra 46.4 FPS. The 4K results show the largest spread between settings — 39.3 FPS from Low to Ultra — and confirm that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at this resolution. The High-to-Ultra gap at 4K is only 4.6 FPS, indicating diminishing returns from Ultra settings at high pixel counts.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 4K resolution, the data shows that Medium settings at 65.3 FPS provide a smooth experience, while High at 51 FPS and Ultra at 46.4 FPS dip below the 60 FPS threshold. Low at 85.7 FPS offers the best performance but sacrifices visual fidelity. The sweet spot is Medium, which balances playability with acceptable visual quality.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings at 90.1 FPS deliver excellent smoothness, while High at 67.9 FPS and Ultra at 67.3 FPS remain above 60 FPS. Low at 119.3 FPS is unnecessary for most players unless they prioritize maximum frame rates. The recommendation here is High, as it provides good visual quality while maintaining a comfortable FPS margin over the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the situation is more nuanced. Medium at 117.4 FPS and Low at 149.9 FPS both offer excellent performance, but High at 84.4 FPS and Ultra at 85 FPS are nearly identical, suggesting that players can enable Ultra without penalty. Since High and Ultra produce the same FPS, choosing Ultra is the obvious pick for 1080p users, as it provides the best visuals with no measurable performance cost.

The overall recommendation is to match settings to resolution: Medium for 4K, High for 1440p, and Ultra for 1080p. This approach maximizes visual quality while keeping FPS at or above playable levels, based on the measured data for this specific CPU-GPU combination.