Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 places this system in the lower half of tested configurations. The data indicates a combo rank of 2912 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all systems evaluated. This is not a configuration designed for maximum visual fidelity, but rather one that requires deliberate settings management to achieve a playable experience. The measured frames per second across all resolutions and presets confirm that this system is consistently GPU-limited, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck in most scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The benchmark results position this specific combination of the Ryzen 5 5600G and RTX 2060 at rank 2912 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 22% of all tested configurations, indicating that it will struggle with the game's most demanding settings. The ranking suggests that while the system is functional, it is far from optimal for this simulator, which is known for its heavy reliance on both CPU and GPU resources. The data shows that this combo is better suited for lower resolutions and reduced graphical presets to maintain acceptable frame rates.

When examining the individual component performance, the CPU holds up reasonably well relative to its peers. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G achieves an average benchmark score of 21088, with a percentile ranking of 74 against all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-1220P and AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, are within a fraction of a percent in performance, with delta percentages of 0.1 and -0.2 respectively. This indicates that the processor is a mid-range performer, capable of handling the simulation's calculations without being a standout. The GPU, however, is a more significant limiting factor. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290 and a percentile ranking of 58 against all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 and AMD Radeon 680M, show that it sits in a crowded mid-range segment, with performance deltas of 0 and 0.1 percent respectively.

The combination's low overall rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's performance ceiling. While the CPU is adequate, the RTX 2060's 6 GB of VRAM and mid-range compute capabilities are insufficient for the highest presets at higher resolutions. The measured FPS data confirms this, showing that at 1080p with Ultra settings, the system only manages an average of 51 FPS, which is below the threshold for a consistently smooth experience in a flight simulator. This rank is a clear indicator that users should temper their expectations and prioritize settings adjustments to achieve playability.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is the primary driver of the system's performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and its specifications provide context for the measured results. The GPU features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a critical factor, as the simulator loads vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The base clock runs at 1365 MHz with a boost clock of 1680 MHz, and the card is built on the Turing architecture with 1920 shading units. These specifications place the GPU in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, indicating a mid-range performance tier.

The benchmark data shows that the GPU's performance degrades predictably as resolution and settings increase. At 4K with Ultra settings, the system averages only 30 FPS, which is essentially unplayable for a smooth experience. The RTX 2060's 6 GB VRAM is likely a limiting factor at this resolution, as the texture and geometry data exceed the available memory, causing performance to plummet. Even at 1440p with High settings, the average FPS drops to 43, which is below the 60 FPS target most users would prefer. The GPU's role is therefore to provide a baseline of performance that requires users to compromise on visual quality to achieve acceptable frame rates.

The data suggests that the RTX 2060 is the bottleneck in this system. When comparing the CPU's performance, which ranks in the 74th percentile, to the GPU's 58th percentile, it is clear that the graphics card is the weaker link. This is further evidenced by the fact that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 92 FPS, but this drops to 51 FPS at Ultra settings. The GPU's compute capability, listed as 6.451 TFLOPS for FP32, is insufficient to handle the simulator's complex rendering at higher presets. Users should expect to run the game at Medium or Low settings to maintain a playable frame rate, especially at resolutions above 1080p.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this system depend heavily on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset provides the best balance of visual quality and performance, with an average of 71 FPS and a minimum of 61 FPS. This ensures a generally smooth experience, though there may be occasional dips in densely populated areas. The Low preset at 1080p yields a much higher average of 92 FPS, which would be preferable for users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The High preset at 1080p delivers 54 FPS, which is playable but may feel less responsive, while the Ultra preset drops to 51 FPS, which is marginal for a flight simulator where precision is key.

For users with a 1440p monitor, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it produces an average of 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS. This is at the edge of playability, and users may need to accept occasional stutters. The Low preset at 1440p achieves 74 FPS, offering a more comfortable margin, but at a significant cost to visual detail. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p, with averages of 43 and 41 FPS respectively, are not recommended for a consistent experience bencher. At 4K, the data shows that only the Low preset, with an average of 55 FPS, comes close to being playable; the Medium preset falls to 42 FPS, and both High and Ultra drop below 32 FPS, making them impractical.

The data indicates that the Medium preset is the sweet spot for this system, providing a reasonable compromise between visual quality and frame rate across all resolutions. For users who absolutely require a 60 FPS experience, the Low preset is the only viable option, and only at 1080p or 1440p. The simulator's demanding nature means that users should not expect to run the game at High or Ultra settings with this hardware, as the measured results show these presets consistently produce frame rates below the playable threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of how this system performs across different resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160 (4K), the system achieves an average of 55 FPS on Low settings, which is the only playable option at this resolution. The Medium preset drops to an average of 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 49 FPS, indicating significant frame time variance. The High preset falls to 32 FPS, and the Ultra preset bottoms out at 30 FPS. These numbers confirm that 4K is only feasible with the lowest settings, and even then, the frame rate is not consistently smooth.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the results improve notably. The Low preset delivers an average of 74 FPS, providing a comfortable experience for most users. The Medium preset averages 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 and maximum of 66, which is acceptable but may have occasional dips. The High preset averages 43 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 41 FPS, both of which are too low for a consistently smooth simulation. The data shows that 1440p with Medium settings is the most demanding configuration that remains playable. At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system performs best, with the Low preset achieving an average of 92 FPS. The Medium preset averages 71 FPS, with a minimum of 61 and maximum of 82, offering a solid experience. The High preset averages 54 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 51 FPS, both of which are playable but not ideal.

The progression of FPS from Low to Ultra at each resolution is consistent, with a clear drop-off as settings increase. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 41 FPS, while at 4K, the difference is 25 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the performance penalty for higher settings is significant regardless of resolution. The data also shows that the minimum FPS values, where available, are close to the averages, suggesting that the system does not experience severe frame drops, but rather a general reduction in performance as settings increase.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals a clear pattern in how performance scales from 1080p to 4K, providing insight into the system's bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 92 FPS. When moving to 1440p, the frame rate drops to 74 FPS, a decrease of approximately 20%. At 4K, the frame rate falls to 55 FPS, which is a further 26% reduction from 1440p. This scaling is typical of a GPU-limited system, where the increase in pixel count directly impacts the rendering load. The CPU's performance is sufficient to handle these resolutions, as the frame rate drops are proportional to the increase in pixels.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar. The system achieves 71 FPS at 1080p, 58 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are consistent, indicating that the GPU is the primary constraint. However, at Ultra settings, the scaling becomes more pronounced. The system achieves 51 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is over 40%, which suggests that the GPU is struggling to maintain performance at higher resolutions with demanding settings. This is likely due to the 6 GB VRAM being exceeded, causing additional memory pressure.

The resolution scaling analysis indicates that the limiting component is the GPU. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is capable of feeding the GPU at these resolutions, as evidenced by the consistent FPS drops that align with pixel count increases. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would plateau or drop more significantly at lower resolutions. The data shows that this is not the case, as the system scales predictably with resolution. This means that users who want to improve performance should focus on GPU upgrades rather than CPU upgrades, as the RTX 2060 is the clear limiting factor in this configuration.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for a smooth experience at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1080p provides the best balance, with an average FPS of 71 and a minimum of 61 FPS. This ensures a generally smooth experience without sacrificing too much visual quality.

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

A: Yes, but only with the Low preset, which achieves an average of 55 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 42 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets are not playable, with averages of 32 and 30 FPS respectively.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the main bottleneck, as indicated by the resolution scaling data. The RTX 2060 ranks in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 74th percentile, and the FPS drops are proportional to pixel count increases.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this system?

A: The lowest recorded minimum FPS is 36, which occurs at 4K with Medium settings. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 49 FPS, and at 1080p Medium, the minimum is 61 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290, which is essentially identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, 0.1% delta). It is slightly ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM and AMD Radeon RX 7600.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, the Low preset achieves an average of 74 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 41 FPS. This represents a difference of 33 FPS, indicating a significant performance penalty for higher settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G plays a supporting role in this system, providing adequate processing power for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It is built on the Zen 3 architecture with a 7 nm process node, and it has a 16 MB L3 cache. The processor's benchmark scores show that it is a solid mid-range performer, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10551 and a single-core score of 1409. Its percentile ranking of 74 against all CPUs confirms that it is above average in performance.

In the context of this game, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation's complex physics and AI calculations, which are single-threaded in nature. The single-core performance, as measured by the 3dmark single-thread score of 872, is sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor, as the frame rates scale with resolution in a manner consistent with GPU limitations. The CPU's 12 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks and the simulator's multi-threaded elements, such as terrain loading and weather simulation.

The CPU's performance relative to its rivals is closely matched. It has an average benchmark score of 21088, which is within 0.4% of its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-1220P and AMD Ryzen 5 7530U. This indicates that the CPU is not a differentiator in this system, but rather a dependable component that does not hinder the GPU's performance. For users considering an upgrade, the data suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint, and any performance gains would come from upgrading the GPU instead. The processor's 65 W TDP and 7 nm process also make it a power-efficient choice, though this does not directly impact game performance.