Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER

This combination ranks 2138th out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. The pairing of AMD's 6-core Ryzen 5 5600GT with NVIDIA's RTX 2070 SUPER produces playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p across most settings, but 4K Ultra proves demanding, dropping to 37 FPS average. The data indicates a system that handles the simulator's CPU-heavy simulation logic competently while the GPU becomes the primary constraint at higher resolutions and quality presets.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. Its base clock of 3.60 GHz can boost up to 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP and 16 MB of L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17,272 and a single-core score of 2,438, with Geekbench results of 7,986 multi-core and 1,843 single-core. The PassMark multi-thread score of 20,325 and single-thread score of 3,348 further characterize its capabilities.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's single-thread performance is particularly relevant, as flight simulation workloads often rely heavily on main-thread performance for physics, weather, and avionics calculations. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,794 and 4-thread score of 3,446 indicate that the processor handles lightly-threaded workloads reasonably well. The 8-thread score of 4,968 and max-thread score of 5,554 suggest scaling is modest beyond 8 threads, which aligns with the simulator's typical usage patterns.

The CPU's 74th percentile ranking versus all CPUs places it above most processors in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12490F with an average score of 20,802 (0.3% higher), the Intel Xeon 6325P at 20,821 (0.4% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125U at 20,826 (0.4% higher). The AMD EPYC 7J13 also sits close at 20,845 (0.5% higher). These negligible deltas mean the 5600GT performs essentially on par with these alternatives in general CPU benchmarks.

In the context of this game, the CPU's role becomes evident when examining frame rates across different resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combination achieves 111 FPS average, which is the highest measured result in this dataset. This suggests that at lower graphical loads, the CPU can feed the GPU sufficiently to reach high frame rates. However, the relative consistency of FPS drops between 1080p and 1440p (roughly 20-25% across settings) indicates the CPU is not the sole bottleneck at higher resolutions, as GPU load increases proportionally.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its TU104 chip contains 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, along with 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1,605 MHz with a boost clock of 1,770 MHz, and memory runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). This configuration yields 9.062 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 113.3 GPixel/s.

The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 18,169 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,651 place it at the 65th percentile versus all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (average score 20,480, 1% higher), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534, 1.2% higher), Intel Arc B570 (20,556, 1.3% higher), and Intel Arc A750 (20,582, 1.5% higher). These small deltas indicate the 2070 SUPER performs similarly to these cards in general GPU benchmarks.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical factor. The game's high-resolution textures and detailed scenery can consume significant memory, especially at 4K resolution. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K Ultra, the combination only achieves 37 FPS average, while 4K High reaches 39 FPS. These results suggest that the GPU is heavily taxed at 4K, and the VRAM capacity may be limiting at the highest settings.

The GPU's memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s and 256-bit bus width provide substantial data throughput, which benefits the streaming-heavy nature of flight simulation. The 160 TMUs and 64 ROPs handle texture filtering and pixel output effectively at 1080p and 1440p, as evidenced by the 111 FPS at 1080p Low and 89 FPS at 1440p Low. However, the 12 nm process and 215 W TDP indicate this is a power-hungry design by modern standards, though the data does not directly measure power consumption in-game.

How This Combo Ranks

This CPU-GPU pairing ranks 2,138th out of 3,714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all tested combos. This ranking reflects a mid-pack position, meaning roughly 1,576 tested combinations perform worse while 2,138 perform better. The rank suggests that while this hardware is capable of running the simulator, it does not deliver top-tier performance.

The ranking position is consistent with the hardware's individual percentiles: the CPU sits at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The combination's in-game rank being lower than either component's individual percentile suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's demands on both components create a balanced but not exceptional experience. The game's simulation-heavy nature means the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are adequate but not outstanding, while the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and mid-range compute capability limit ultra-high settings.

Compared to the nearest rival combinations in the database, this pairing's rank indicates it trails a significant portion of tested systems. The deltaPct values between the CPU and its nearest rivals are all under 0.5%, meaning CPU performance is essentially interchangeable with those alternatives. Similarly, the GPU's nearest rivals are within 1.5% in benchmark scores. This suggests that the combination's ranking is driven more by the absolute level of hardware rather than any specific pairing advantage.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers its strongest performance. Low settings yield 111 FPS average, Medium produces 86 FPS (with a minimum of 73 and maximum of 99), High achieves 65 FPS, and Ultra drops to 62 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p gaming is smooth across all settings, with even Ultra maintaining above 60 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 49 FPS, representing a 44% reduction in frame rate from the lowest to highest quality preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance decreases noticeably. Low settings produce 89 FPS average, Medium reaches 70 FPS (minimum 59, maximum 80), High delivers 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50 FPS. At this resolution, the Medium preset remains playable, while High and Ultra dip below the 60 FPS threshold. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 39 FPS, a 44% reduction similar to the 1080p scaling pattern.

At 3840x2160, the combination struggles with higher settings. Low settings achieve 66 FPS average, Medium reaches 51 FPS (minimum 44, maximum 59), High drops to 39 FPS, and Ultra falls to 37 FPS. Only the Low preset maintains above 60 FPS at 4K, while Medium hovers near playable territory and High/Ultra become marginal. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 29 FPS, a 44% reduction consistent with the other resolutions.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset shows the most complete data with minimum and maximum FPS values. At 1080p Medium, the range spans 73 to 99 FPS; at 1440p Medium, 59 to 80 FPS; and at 4K Medium, 44 to 59 FPS. This consistent ~26 FPS range across resolutions suggests stable frame pacing without severe hitches, though the 4K Medium maximum of 59 FPS indicates the GPU is nearing its limit.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component dynamics. At Low settings, FPS drops from 111 at 1080p to 89 at 1440p (a 20% reduction) and then to 66 at 4K (a 26% reduction from 1440p). The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 45 FPS, representing a 41% decrease. This relatively modest scaling at Low settings suggests the CPU can maintain high frame rates even as resolution increases, with the GPU handling the additional pixel load.

At Medium settings, FPS decreases from 86 at 1080p to 70 at 1440p (19% reduction) and then to 51 at 4K (27% reduction). The total drop is 35 FPS, a 41% decrease from 1080p to 4K. High settings show a similar pattern: 65 FPS at 1080p drops to 52 at 1440p (20% reduction) and then to 39 at 4K (25% reduction), for a total 40% decrease. Ultra settings follow with 62 FPS at 1080p, 50 at 1440p (19% reduction), and 37 at 4K (26% reduction), totaling 40% decrease.

The consistent ~20% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and ~26% reduction from 1440p to 4K across all settings indicates that both the CPU and GPU contribute to performance scaling. The relatively smaller percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p suggests the CPU remains a relevant factor at lower resolutions, while the larger drop from 1440p to 4K points to increasing GPU dominance. At 4K Ultra, the 37 FPS result represents the weakest performance point, confirming that the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at this resolution and quality level.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Based on the data, 1080p Ultra delivers 62 FPS average, which is the highest quality preset maintaining above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Medium achieves 70 FPS and remains playable, while 4K requires Low settings for 66 FPS.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600GT's average benchmark score of 20,733 is within 0.5% of the Intel Core i5-12490F (20,802), Intel Xeon 6325P (20,821), Intel Core Ultra 5 125U (20,826), and AMD EPYC 7J13 (20,845), making performance essentially equivalent.

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the combination achieves only 37 FPS average, while 4K High reaches 39 FPS. The low frame rates at 4K High and Ultra suggest the GPU's memory capacity and compute capability are limiting factors at this resolution.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 70 FPS average at 1440p Medium, with a minimum of 59 FPS and a maximum of 80 FPS. This indicates generally smooth performance with occasional dips near 60 FPS.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: Across all settings, the frame rate drops by approximately 40-41% from 1080p to 4K. For example, Low settings decrease from 111 FPS to 66 FPS, while Ultra drops from 62 FPS to 37 FPS.

Q: Does this combination perform better in CPU-heavy or GPU-heavy scenarios?

A: The CPU ranks at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The consistent ~20% FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~26% drop from 1440p to 4K indicates the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions.