Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 5 5600G + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

This combination of AMD's 6-core Ryzen 5 5600G and NVIDIA's RTX 2060 SUPER delivers playable but demanding performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its heavy simulation overhead and vast streaming worlds. The measured data shows a system that can handle 1080p and 1440p at medium-to-high settings comfortably, while 4K remains a stretch requiring significant compromises. The CPU, with its Zen 3 architecture and 6 cores / 12 threads, sits at the 74th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 62nd percentile ranking indicate a balanced pairing that leans slightly toward CPU-bound behavior at lower resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern, but with some nuance. At Low settings, the system produces 101 FPS at 1080p, 81 FPS at 1440p, and 60 FPS at 4K — a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This steep decline indicates that at lower graphical presets, the RTX 2060 SUPER is the primary limiting factor, as the CPU has enough headroom to feed frames but the GPU's 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot sustain higher pixel throughput.

At Medium settings, the pattern shifts slightly. The system achieves 78 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K. The 1440p to 4K drop of 25% is less severe than the 1080p to 1440p drop of 19%, suggesting that at this preset, the CPU's 16 MB L3 cache and 6-core configuration begin to matter more as the GPU load increases. The measured minimum FPS of 40 at 4K Medium versus 54 at 1440p Medium indicates frame pacing becomes more inconsistent at higher resolutions.

High settings show a similar trend: 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 4K scaling of 41% is nearly identical to Low, reinforcing that the GPU is the bottleneck across all presets. However, the absolute numbers reveal that High settings at 4K (35 FPS) are barely playable, while 1080p High (59 FPS) approaches the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings produce 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K, with the 1440p to 4K drop of 27% being the largest relative decline in the dataset.

The data implies that Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering engine scales resolution almost linearly with GPU load, but the 8 GB VRAM capacity becomes a concern at 4K Ultra where texture streaming demands exceed comfortable margins. The 256-bit memory bus and 14 Gbps effective memory speed help mitigate this, but the 35 FPS at 4K High and 33 FPS at 4K Ultra clearly position this GPU as a 1080p-to-1440p solution for this title.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for optimizing the experience. For players targeting 60 FPS as a baseline, the only preset that achieves this at 1080p is Low, with 101 FPS. Medium at 1080p delivers 78 FPS, which offers a substantial visual upgrade over Low while maintaining smooth frame rates. High at 1080p drops to 59 FPS, just shy of the 60 FPS target, while Ultra sits at 56 FPS — a marginal difference from High that may not justify the extra visual load.

At 1440p, the situation tightens considerably. Medium produces 63 FPS, which is the sweet spot for this resolution, offering a 34% improvement over High (47 FPS) and a 28% improvement over Ultra (45 FPS). The step from Medium to High at 1440p costs 16 FPS, which is a significant sacrifice for what is typically a modest visual gain in this sim. Low at 1440p (81 FPS) is viable for competitive or performance-focused play, but the visual fidelity loss is substantial for a simulation game where immersion matters.

For 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low (60 FPS) exactly hits the target, but the visual downgrade is severe. Medium (47 FPS) is the highest playable preset, though the minimum FPS of 40 suggests occasional stutters during dense scenery. High (35 FPS) and Ultra (33 FPS) are effectively slideshows for most players, and the data suggests avoiding these unless the user accepts a cinematic, non-interactive experience.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p Medium with 78 FPS, which balances the 8 GB VRAM usage and the CPU's 6-core load without pushing either component to its limit. For 1440p users, Medium at 63 FPS is the recommended choice, as it maintains playability while preserving enough visual detail for terrain recognition and instrument readability. The 4K Medium setting at 47 FPS is a compromise pick for those with 4K displays, but the data suggests that 1440p Medium provides a more consistent frame pacing based on the narrower min-to-max spread (54-73 FPS versus 40-54 FPS).

GPU Role

The RTX 2060 SUPER's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is crucial for Microsoft Flight Simulator's aggressive texture streaming. The benchmark results show the GPU at the 62nd percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18093. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 3060 Mobile (0.4% slower), Radeon Pro 5700 (0.5% slower), and RX 460 (1.5% slower), indicating this card sits in a tightly contested mid-range segment.

The GPU's boost clock of 1650 MHz and base clock of 1470 MHz, combined with 2176 shading units, produce 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The data reveals that this compute capacity is sufficient for 1080p Medium at 78 FPS, but the 4K Ultra result of 33 FPS shows the card is overwhelmed when pixel count quadruples from 1080p. The 12 nm process node and 175 W TDP suggest the card operates efficiently within its power envelope, but the 445 mm² die size indicates a mature design that relies on architectural efficiency rather than raw transistor count.

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB is the most critical constraint at higher resolutions. The measured FPS at 4K Medium (47 FPS) versus 4K High (35 FPS) shows a 26% performance penalty for what is typically a texture-quality increase, suggesting the card may be swapping textures or reducing streaming rates when VRAM pressure rises. The 14 Gbps effective memory speed helps compensate, but the data implies that 8 GB is the floor for modern flight sims at 4K, and the RTX 2060 SUPER's 256-bit bus provides just enough bandwidth to avoid catastrophic stuttering.

The GPU's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and 34 RT cores are largely irrelevant for this title, as the measured data shows no ray tracing-specific results. The Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 API support ensure compatibility, but the benchmark scores for DirectX 11 (130) and DirectX 12 (61) suggest the card performs better in older APIs, which aligns with Microsoft Flight Simulator's DX11-era rendering path.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1080p Medium delivers 78 FPS, which is the highest playable frame rate with balanced visuals. 1440p Medium at 63 FPS is also viable, while 4K Medium at 47 FPS is the minimum for acceptable playability at that resolution.

Q: Can this system hit 60 FPS at 4K?

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves exactly 60 FPS. Medium settings at 4K produce 47 FPS, and High/Ultra drop to 35 and 33 FPS respectively, making 4K 60 FPS unattainable without significant visual compromises.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance in this game?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600G's 6 cores and 12 threads at 3.90 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost provide sufficient processing power for the simulation's physics and AI, but the data shows the GPU becomes the bottleneck at all resolutions above 1080p Low, meaning CPU headroom is not the limiting factor.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at different settings?

A: The measured min/max FPS data for Medium settings shows 1080p ranges from 67 to 90 FPS, 1440p from 54 to 73 FPS, and 4K from 40 to 54 FPS. The widening spread at higher resolutions indicates less consistent frame pacing as GPU load increases.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The data suggests yes for 1080p and 1440p, where the card maintains 59+ FPS at High settings. At 4K, the performance drop from Medium to High (47 to 35 FPS) hints that VRAM capacity may be a limiting factor, though the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth helps mitigate this.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER's average benchmark score of 18093 is 0.4% higher than the RTX 3060 Mobile, 0.5% higher than the Radeon Pro 5700, and 1.5% higher than the RX 460, indicating it sits at the top of its immediate performance tier.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination ranks 2571 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 31st percentile of all configurations. This ranking reflects a system that is capable but not exceptional for this title, given the game's reputation as one of the most demanding simulations available. The CPU's 74th percentile ranking (against all CPUs) and the GPU's 62nd percentile ranking suggest an imbalance: the CPU has more relative headroom than the GPU, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing GPU-bound behavior at most settings.

The rank of 2571 indicates that roughly 69% of tested combos outperform this pairing, which is expected given the RTX 2060 SUPER's mid-range positioning and the CPU's integrated-GPU lineage (the 5600G's Radeon Vega 7 iGPU is irrelevant here but signals a lower-tier product in the Ryzen 5000 stack). The 3714 total combos span a wide range of hardware, from entry-level to flagship, so this rank places the system in the lower-middle tier for this specific game.

Notably, the CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Core i3-1220P (0.1% faster), Intel Core Ultra 7 256V (0.1% slower), and AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (0.2% slower). These are all mobile or low-power parts, indicating the 5600G's desktop 65 W TDP provides competitive performance per watt but not exceptional raw throughput. The GPU's nearest rivals (RTX 3060 Mobile, Radeon Pro 5700, RX 460) all fall within 1.6% of its average score, confirming that the 2060 SUPER is a well-positioned mid-range card whose performance is closely matched by a wide range of alternatives.

CPU Role

The Ryzen 5 5600G's 6 cores and 12 threads, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with Zen 3 architecture (Cezanne codename), provide the compute foundation for Microsoft Flight Simulator's complex flight models, weather simulation, and AI traffic. The 3.90 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock, combined with 16 MB L3 cache, deliver strong single-threaded performance — the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1409 and Geekbench single-core score of 1801 demonstrate this — which is critical for a game that relies heavily on a few main threads for simulation logic.

The CPU's 3DMark scores show scaling from 872 (single-thread) to 5455 (max threads), with the 8-thread score of 4694 representing 86% of the max-thread score. This indicates that the game benefits from up to 8 threads, but the 12-thread configuration (5455 max) provides diminishing returns, meaning the 5600G's extra threads are underutilized in this title. The PassMark multithread score of 19717 and physics score of 900 reinforce that the CPU has adequate throughput for the game's non-rendering workloads.

At 1080p Low (101 FPS), the CPU is likely the bottleneck, as the GPU has spare capacity at such low graphical settings. However, as resolution increases, the GPU's load grows and the CPU becomes less critical — the 4K Low result of 60 FPS is nearly identical to the 4K Medium result of 47 FPS, suggesting the CPU maintains its contribution regardless of GPU load. The 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are adequate for this workload, though the PCIe Gen 3 interface (16 lanes) limits bandwidth to the GPU compared to newer Gen 4 systems.

The CPU's 74th percentile ranking against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21088, places it slightly above the median but below high-end desktop parts. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-1220P, scores within 0.1%, showing that the 5600G's 6-core/12-thread configuration is comparable to newer hybrid mobile chips in raw throughput. For this game, the data indicates the CPU provides sufficient performance to avoid being the primary limiter at 1080p Medium and above, but at 1080p Low, its single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 872) may prevent higher frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 101 FPS average — the highest frame rate in the entire dataset, indicating the GPU has significant headroom at minimal settings.
• Medium: 78 FPS average, with a min of 67 and max of 90 — a 23% drop from Low, offering a balanced visual upgrade.
• High: 59 FPS average — just below the 60 FPS threshold, representing a 24% reduction from Medium.
• Ultra: 56 FPS average — only 3 FPS lower than High, suggesting diminishing returns from Ultra settings at this resolution.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 81 FPS average — a 20% decrease from 1080p Low, showing expected scaling with pixel count.
• Medium: 63 FPS average, with a min of 54 and max of 73 — a 22% drop from 1080p Medium, maintaining playability.
• High: 47 FPS average — a 25% reduction from 1080p High, pushing the experience below smooth thresholds.
• Ultra: 45 FPS average — nearly identical to High, indicating the GPU is saturated at this resolution.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 60 FPS average — exactly at the playable threshold, but requiring minimal visuals.
• Medium: 47 FPS average, with a min of 40 and max of 54 — the only 4K preset with measured variance, showing 14 FPS of frame pacing instability.
• High: 35 FPS average — a 26% drop from 1440p High, confirming GPU-bound scaling.
• Ultra: 33 FPS average — the lowest result, 6% below High, indicating Ultra settings add negligible visual benefit at this resolution.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: the RTX 2060 SUPER loses approximately 20-25% performance when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 25-30% from 1440p to 4K. This geometric scaling is typical for a GPU with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, as pixel throughput demands grow quadratically with resolution. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings (67 at 1080p, 54 at 1440p, 40 at 4K) show that frame drops become more pronounced at higher resolutions, which is critical for a simulation game where smooth panning over terrain is essential.