Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and AMD Radeon RX 6600 combination ranks 2870th out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the lower half of the database, at roughly the 23rd percentile of all tested systems for this specific title. The rank reflects a mid-range pairing that can run the simulator but will require careful settings management to achieve smooth frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions. The data indicates this is a functional entry point for flight simulation rather than a high-end solution, with the measured performance aligning closely with what the individual component benchmarks suggest.

How This Combo Ranks

The 2870th position out of 3714 combos places this system solidly in the lower-middle tier of tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a demanding simulation title, and the ranking reflects the hardware's position relative to all other CPU-GPU pairings in the database. The RX 6600 holds the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 5600GT sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, yet their combined ranking in this game is lower than either individual percentile might suggest. This indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator stresses the system in ways that the generic benchmark scores do not fully capture, likely due to the game's heavy reliance on single-thread CPU performance and sustained GPU throughput.

The combo's rank is not an outlier when compared to the component-level data. The GPU's average benchmark score of 19036 places it nearly identical to the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, which scores 19030 with a deltaPct of 0. The CPU's average score of 20733 is within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-12490F, which scores 20802. These near-parity relationships suggest that the in-game rank is consistent with the hardware's overall compute capabilities, rather than being dragged down by a specific bottleneck. The measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings confirms that this system can deliver playable frame rates, but only at lower quality presets or resolutions, which is typical for a mid-range configuration in a flight simulator that is known for pushing hardware to its limits.

GPU Role

The Radeon RX 6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The GPU's base clock is 1626 MHz, with a boost clock of 2491 MHz and a game clock of 2044 MHz. The memory operates at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective. With 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, the card also includes 28 ray accelerators for hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor. The game is known for streaming vast amounts of terrain and scenery data, and the measured results show that the card handles the load across all tested settings. At 4K resolution with Low settings, the average FPS jumps to 55 from 32 at High, indicating that the GPU's compute throughput is the limiting factor at higher quality presets rather than memory capacity. The card's FP32 performance of 8.928 TFLOPS provides the raw compute for rendering the detailed cockpit instruments and ground textures, but the data shows that at Ultra settings across all resolutions, frame rates drop below 60 FPS. The GPU's percentile rank of 63 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19036, places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, which scores 19049 with a deltaPct of -0.1, and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, which scores 18954 with a deltaPct of 0.4. These rivals demonstrate that the RX 6600 sits in a competitive mid-range segment, but for this simulation, it delivers playable performance only up to Medium settings at 1080p or Low settings at 4K.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Cezanne, and built on a 7 nm process. Its base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, and it has a 65 W TDP. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. It includes 16 MB of L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The processor's integrated graphics, Radeon Vega 7, are present but not used in this configuration since a discrete GPU is installed.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's single-thread and multi-thread performance are both relevant, as the game simulates physics, weather, and AI traffic across multiple threads. The 5600GT's Cinebench R23 scores of 2438 for single-core and 17272 for multi-core indicate solid performance for a 6-core part. The 3DMark scores show a scaling pattern: 1794 for 2 threads, 3446 for 4 threads, 4968 for 8 threads, and 5554 for max threads, which suggests the CPU scales reasonably well with additional threads. The PassMark single-thread score of 3348 and multithread score of 20325 further characterize the processor's capabilities.

The CPU's percentile rank of 74 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20733, places it just behind the Intel Core i5-12490F, which scores 20802 with a deltaPct of -0.3. In the context of this game, the CPU's performance is adequate but not exceptional. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 92 FPS, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU at lower resolutions. However, as settings increase, the frame rate drops, indicating that the CPU's thread management and cache hierarchy are sufficient for the simulation's demands but do not provide headroom for high-quality presets. The 16 MB L3 cache is notable, as flight simulators often benefit from larger caches to store frequently accessed scenery data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 92 FPS on Low settings, 72 FPS on Medium, 54 FPS on High, and 51 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 1080p has a recorded minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS, showing a consistent frame delivery without severe dips. The High preset at 1080p drops to 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider smooth, while Ultra barely maintains playability at 51 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS decreases across all presets. Low settings deliver 74 FPS, Medium drops to 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS, High falls to 43 FPS, and Ultra reaches 41 FPS. The 1440p Medium preset shows a 15 FPS drop compared to the same settings at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is becoming a more significant bottleneck as resolution increases. At 3840x2160, the performance declines further: Low settings yield 55 FPS, Medium delivers 43 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS, High drops to 32 FPS, and Ultra reaches 31 FPS. The 4K results show that the system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any preset, and even Low settings at 4K are only marginally above the playability threshold.

The data reveals a clear pattern: the system excels at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, where it can deliver frame rates above 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Low settings achieve this, while Medium is close at 58 FPS. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS, and the system is best suited for Low settings at this resolution if frame rate is the priority. The minimum FPS values for Medium settings across all resolutions show that the system maintains a reasonable floor, with 61 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K, indicating that severe frame drops are not a major issue, but the overall averages limit the experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K illustrates which component is the primary limiting factor. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 92 at 1080p to 55 at 4K, a reduction of 40%. At Medium settings, the drop is from 72 to 43 FPS, a 40% decrease. At High settings, the reduction is from 54 to 32 FPS, a 41% drop. At Ultra settings, the decrease is from 51 to 31 FPS, a 39% reduction. The consistency of this 40% drop across all settings presets strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component, as resolution scaling affects the GPU's workload more than the CPU's.

The CPU's role becomes less prominent as resolution increases, which is typical for a well-balanced mid-range system. At 1080p, the CPU can push the GPU to 92 FPS at Low settings, but at 4K, the GPU's fill rate and shading capabilities are overwhelmed, resulting in a bottleneck. The RX 6600's pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s are sufficient for 1080p gaming but struggle with the 8.3 million pixels of a 4K display, especially at higher settings. The memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s also becomes a constraint at 4K, as the GPU must fetch more texture data to fill the larger frame buffer.

The scaling data shows that the system behaves predictably: doubling the pixel count from 1080p to 4K (from approximately 2 million to 8.3 million pixels) results in a 40% performance drop, which is less than the 75% reduction that would occur if the GPU were perfectly scaling with pixel count. This suggests that the CPU is still contributing some overhead at higher resolutions, preventing a more dramatic FPS loss. However, the fact that the percentage drop is nearly identical across all settings indicates that the GPU's memory subsystem and compute units are the dominant constraint, and the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are not being saturated at any resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset for this combo depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers an average of 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance. This preset allows for smooth gameplay without sacrificing too much detail, and the 61 FPS minimum ensures that even the most demanding scenes remain playable. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 92 FPS but at a significant visual cost, while High and Ultra drop below 60 FPS, making them less suitable for a smooth experience.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset provides an average of 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS. While this is below the 60 FPS target, the 49 FPS minimum is acceptable for a flight simulator, where frame rate fluctuations are less noticeable than in fast-paced action games. The Low preset at 74 FPS is the only option that consistently exceeds 60 FPS, but it sacrifices visual fidelity. For users who prioritize smoothness at 1440p, Low is the recommended choice; for those who value visual quality, Medium is a viable compromise.

At 3840x2160, the system is limited to Low settings for a playable experience, achieving 55 FPS on average. The Medium preset at 43 FPS with a 36 FPS minimum is playable but may struggle during complex scenes with dense scenery or heavy weather effects. Given that the Ultra and High presets at 4K both fall below 32 FPS, they are not recommended for any scenario. The data suggests that this combo is best utilized at 1080p with Medium settings, where it delivers the most consistent performance above 60 FPS. For users with 1440p displays, Medium settings offer a good balance, while 4K users should stick to Low settings to maintain a reasonable frame rate. The measured results indicate that the system is not designed for high-fidelity 4K flight simulation, but it can handle the game adequately at lower resolutions with moderate quality presets.