Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 7600 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER delivers a playable but constrained experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with performance firmly bottlenecked by the GPU across all tested resolutions. The combo ranks 1608th out of 1795 tested configurations, placing it in the bottom 10% of all systems tested, which indicates that while the CPU is capable of feeding the graphics card, the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and Turing architecture simply cannot keep up with the simulator's demanding rendering workloads. The data shows a clear pattern: dropping resolution from 4K to 1080p yields significant frame rate gains, but even at 1080p Low settings, the system only approaches playable territory without reaching the smooth 60 FPS mark at higher presets.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-limited scenario. At Ultra settings, the transition from 1920x1080 (41.4 FPS) to 2560x1440 (34 FPS) represents an 18% performance drop, and further scaling to 3840x2160 (26.6 FPS) costs another 22% of frame rate. This steep decline as pixel count increases is the hallmark of a graphics card that is saturated even at lower resolutions. The Low preset tells a similar story: 77.6 FPS at 1080p falls to 62.8 FPS at 1440p (a 19% reduction), then to 45.3 FPS at 4K (another 28% drop). These scaling patterns indicate that the GTX 1660 SUPER's compute throughput and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the CPU.

The Medium preset shows the most linear scaling curve, moving from 58 FPS at 1080p to 45.8 FPS at 1440p (21% loss) and then to 32.3 FPS at 4K (29% loss). This consistent degradation across all settings suggests that the GPU's 192-bit memory bus and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are being fully utilized, with the 6 GB GDDR6 frame buffer becoming a critical constraint at higher resolutions. Notably, the gap between 1440p and 4K is consistently larger than the gap between 1080p and 1440p, which reinforces that pixel count directly translates to memory pressure and fill-rate demands that this GPU cannot meet at 4K.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER operates with a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, built on the 12 nm TU116 chip with 1408 shading units. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's performance percentile of 55 versus all GPUs places it firmly in the mid-range, and the benchmark results confirm that it is the primary constraint in this pairing. The card's FP32 throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s are modest by modern standards, and the simulator's heavy draw loads and complex terrain rendering expose these limitations.

The VRAM capacity of 6 GB is particularly relevant for Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and texture data. At 4K Ultra, the system manages only 26.6 FPS, and while the frame buffer isn't explicitly measured in the data, the steep performance cliff between Medium (32.3 FPS) and High (24.6 FPS) at 4K suggests that texture detail settings are overwhelming the available memory. The GPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score—the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (0.2% behind), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (0.2% behind), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (0.7% behind)—all fall within a narrow performance band, but the GTX 1660 SUPER's 12 nm process and 125 W TDP indicate it was designed for 1080p gaming, not 4K flight simulation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance between visual fidelity and playability is the Medium preset at 1920x1080, which delivers 58 FPS. This is the only setting at 1080p that exceeds the 30 FPS threshold considered minimally playable for a flight simulator while still offering better visuals than Low. The Low preset at 1080p (77.6 FPS) provides the smoothest experience and is recommended for users prioritizing frame rate over appearance, as it maintains headroom above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Low (62.8 FPS) is the only viable option, as Medium (45.8 FPS) and High (36.3 FPS) fall below comfortable playability, and Ultra (34 FPS) dips further.

At 4K, no preset achieves a playable frame rate—even Low (45.3 FPS) is borderline, and Medium (32.3 FPS) drops below 30 FPS. Users with 4K displays should avoid Ultra (26.6 FPS) and High (24.6 FPS) entirely, as these settings produce stutter-prone performance. The data strongly suggests that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this combo, offering a 40% improvement over High (44 FPS) while maintaining the same resolution, and a 25% improvement over Ultra (41.4 FPS). For users who can tolerate lower visual quality, 1080p Low at 77.6 FPS provides the most responsive experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 77.6 FPS on Low, 58 FPS on Medium, 44 FPS on High, and 41.4 FPS on Ultra. This represents a 47% performance spread from Low to Ultra, with the step from Medium to High costing 24% of frame rate and the step from High to Ultra costing only 6%. The diminishing returns between High and Ultra suggest that the GPU is already saturated at High, and Ultra adds visual effects that tax the hardware without proportional frame rate benefits.

At 2560x1440, the results are 62.8 FPS on Low, 45.8 FPS on Medium, 36.3 FPS on High, and 34 FPS on Ultra. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs 19% at Low, 21% at Medium, 18% at High, and 18% at Ultra—a remarkably consistent penalty that underscores the GPU-bound nature of the workload. At 3840x2160, the figures drop to 45.3 FPS on Low, 32.3 FPS on Medium, 24.6 FPS on High, and 26.6 FPS on Ultra. Interestingly, Ultra (26.6 FPS) outperforms High (24.6 FPS) at 4K by 8%, which is an anomaly suggesting that certain High-specific settings may be less optimized than Ultra's integrated profile.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1608 out of 1795 tested configurations places this system in the 10th percentile of all tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU, which itself sits at the 55th percentile versus all GPUs, while the CPU ranks at the 83rd percentile versus all CPUs. The disparity between the two components' percentile rankings confirms that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the bottleneck, and the overall combo ranking reflects this imbalance. Users can expect this system to struggle with the simulator's most demanding scenarios, particularly at higher resolutions and settings, but it remains functional for moderate play at 1080p.

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i9-12900HK (0.2% behind), AMD EPYC 8024P (0.2% ahead), and Intel Core i9-11900K (0.3% ahead). These tight margins indicate that the Ryzen 5 7600's processing power is on par with much more expensive chips, but this advantage is wasted in this pairing because the GPU cannot translate it into higher frame rates. The GPU's nearest rivals—AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT—all score within 0.7% of the GTX 1660 SUPER, confirming that this graphics card is at the very bottom of the discrete GPU performance spectrum.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 contributes 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, running at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosting to 5.10 GHz. Its 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth provide ample compute resources for Flight Simulator's simulation logic and AI calculations. The CPU's Cinebench R23 scores of 22992 multi-core and 3246 single-core place it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, and its 3DMark single-thread score of 999 indicates strong per-core performance that benefits the simulator's main-thread-heavy workloads.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU is never the limiting factor in this combo. Across all resolutions and settings, frame rates scale consistently with GPU load, and there is no scenario where the CPU appears to cap performance. The 65 W TDP and 5 nm process node allow for efficient sustained operation, but the GPU's 125 W TDP and 12 nm process create a thermal and power imbalance that favors the CPU. In practical terms, the Ryzen 5 7600 delivers the raw compute needed for Flight Simulator's complex flight models and weather systems, but the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot render the resulting scenes fast enough to use that headroom. Users considering an upgrade should prioritize the GPU first, as the CPU has demonstrated it can handle significantly more demanding graphics hardware.

FAQ

Q: What is the best setting for smooth gameplay with this combo?

A: The 1920x1080 Low preset delivers 77.6 FPS, which is the only configuration exceeding 60 FPS. For better visuals, 1080p Medium at 58 FPS is the recommended balance.

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

A: No preset at 3840x2160 reaches 60 FPS. Low achieves 45.3 FPS, Medium drops to 32.3 FPS, and Ultra falls to 26.6 FPS, making 4K impractical.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU scores within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics in average benchmark score, with the GTX 1660 SUPER at 14286 points.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7600 strong enough for this game?

A: Yes, the CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22992, and its nearest rival, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, scores only 0.2% higher.

Q: Why does 4K Ultra (26.6 FPS) outperform 4K High (24.6 FPS)?

A: The data shows a 8% higher frame rate at Ultra, which is an unusual result suggesting that High's settings profile may be less optimized than Ultra's integrated configuration.

Q: What overall rank does this combo achieve?

A: It ranks 1608th out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 10% of all systems tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator.