Microsoft Flight Simulator

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture (codename Raphael) using TSMC's 5 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, backed by a 65 W TDP. The chip includes 32 MB of shared L3 cache, with 1 MB L2 per core and 64 KB L1 per core. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel access and a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, alongside PCIe Gen 5 support with 24 lanes from the CPU.

Benchmark data shows this processor sits in the 83rd percentile versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26617. Its nearest rivals in aggregate performance include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (score 26574, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i9-12900HK (score 26672, delta -0.2%), AMD EPYC 8024P (score 26555, delta 0.2%), and Intel Core i9-11900K (score 26546, delta 0.3%). This places the Ryzen 5 7600 within a tight performance band—essentially tied with these parts, with deltas under 0.3%.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial because flight simulation involves continuous physics, weather, and scenery streaming computations. The 6-core/12-thread configuration provides enough parallelism for the game's simulation thread, while the high boost clock of 5.10 GHz ensures single-thread responsiveness. The 3dmark single-thread score of 999 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3246 indicate strong per-core performance, which is critical for the game's primary simulation loop. Multi-threaded results (Cinebench R23 multicore 22992, 3dmark max threads 6503) show the CPU can handle background tasks, but flight simulators rarely scale perfectly across many cores, making the Ryzen 5 7600's balance of clock speed and core count appropriate for this title.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a Turing-architecture GPU (chip TU116) fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz, and memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The GPU has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 84.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 169.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.437 TFLOPS. The card uses a dual-slot design with a 120 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU.

This GPU sits in the 55th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13925. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X (score 13871, delta 0.4%), NVIDIA Tesla K10 (score 14029, delta -0.7%), NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (score 13821, delta 0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (score 13812, delta 0.8%). The GTX 1660 Ti is thus slightly above the RX 570X and GTX 680, but marginally behind the Tesla K10 in aggregate benchmarks, with all deltas within 0.8%.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM is a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings. The game streams vast terrain and aircraft textures, and the 192-bit memory bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth helps move data, but 6 GB can fill quickly at 4K Ultra. The lack of dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores (RT cores and tensor cores are null) means the GPU relies purely on rasterization. Benchmark results show this GPU is adequate for playable frame rates at 1080p but struggles at 4K, particularly on High and Ultra presets where average FPS falls below 25.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 77 FPS, dropping to 65.9 FPS at 1440p Low (a 14.4% decrease), and further to 48.9 FPS at 4K Low (a 36.5% decrease from 1080p). This substantial drop indicates the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. For Medium settings, the progression is 61.7 FPS at 1080p, 51.3 FPS at 1440p (a 16.9% drop), and 35.3 FPS at 4K (a 42.8% drop from 1080p). High settings show 44 FPS at 1080p, 38.2 FPS at 1440p (a 13.2% drop), and 24.8 FPS at 4K (a 43.6% drop). Ultra settings mirror this: 46.1 FPS at 1080p, 38.1 FPS at 1440p (a 17.4% drop), and 24.6 FPS at 4K (a 46.6% drop).

The consistent pattern—where the percentage drop from 1080p to 4K increases with higher settings—confirms the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU (Ryzen 5 7600) is capable of feeding the GPU at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 77 FPS at 1080p Low, but the GTX 1660 Ti's rendering throughput caps performance as pixel count rises. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is also telling: 48.9 FPS versus 24.6 FPS, a 49.7% reduction, highlighting how the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are stretched at 4K Ultra. At 1080p, the difference between Low (77 FPS) and Ultra (46.1 FPS) is 40.1%, showing the GPU still handles the load better at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ranks 1541 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 14.2% of all tested combinations, indicating that while the CPU is strong (83rd percentile), the GPU drags the overall ranking down significantly. The rank reflects the measured FPS across all resolutions and settings, where the GTX 1660 Ti's performance is modest relative to other GPUs in the database.

The CPU's high percentile (83rd) versus the GPU's mid-range percentile (55th) explains the discrepancy: the combo is CPU-heavy but GPU-light, which is suboptimal for a visually demanding flight simulator. The data shows that many other combos with similar or weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs achieve better average FPS. For instance, the nearest rival CPUs (Ryzen 7 5800X3D, Core i9-12900HK) would likely rank higher when paired with more capable GPUs, but this combo's rank is determined by the actual measured results. The 1541st rank suggests that in practice, the GTX 1660 Ti cannot fully utilize the Ryzen 5 7600's potential in this game, particularly at higher resolutions where GPU load dominates.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 77 FPS
• Medium: 61.7 FPS
• High: 44 FPS
• Ultra: 46.1 FPS

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 65.9 FPS
• Medium: 51.3 FPS
• High: 38.2 FPS
• Ultra: 38.1 FPS

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 48.9 FPS
• Medium: 35.3 FPS
• High: 24.8 FPS
• Ultra: 24.6 FPS

The data shows an anomaly: at 1080p Ultra (46.1 FPS) is higher than 1080p High (44 FPS), which is unexpected. This could indicate measurement variance or that the Ultra preset's specific settings (e.g., texture streaming) interact differently with the CPU. At 1440p, High (38.2 FPS) and Ultra (38.1 FPS) are nearly identical, suggesting the GPU is saturated. At 4K, High and Ultra are almost the same (24.8 vs 24.6 FPS), confirming the GPU is the hard limit. The largest FPS jump between presets occurs at 1080p: from Low (77) to Medium (61.7) is a 15.3 FPS drop, while from Medium to High (44) is a 17.7 FPS drop, but High to Ultra (46.1) shows a slight increase. This non-linear behavior suggests the CPU handles some Ultra settings well at 1080p, but the GPU bottleneck dominates at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain playable frame rates?

A: At 1080p, all settings except High and Ultra (44 and 46.1 FPS) are above 60 FPS. At 1440p, Low (65.9 FPS) is playable, but Medium (51.3 FPS) and above dip below 60. At 4K, only Low (48.9 FPS) approaches playability, with other settings below 36 FPS.

Q: Why does the combo rank so low (1541 out of 1795) despite the CPU being in the 83rd percentile?

A: The GPU is in the 55th percentile, and its 6 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth limit performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The measured FPS at 4K High/Ultra (24.8/24.6 FPS) are well below 30 FPS, dragging the combo rank down.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 7600 (score 26617) is within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (26574, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i9-12900HK (26672, delta -0.2%), AMD EPYC 8024P (26555, delta 0.2%), and Intel Core i9-11900K (26546, delta 0.3%). Performance is effectively tied.

Q: What is the biggest FPS drop between settings at any resolution?

A: The largest drop is at 1080p from Low (77 FPS) to Medium (61.7 FPS), a 15.3 FPS decrease. At 4K, the drop from Low (48.9) to Medium (35.3) is 13.6 FPS, while from Medium to High (24.8) is 10.5 FPS.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor at 4K?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K, High (24.8 FPS) and Ultra (24.6 FPS) are nearly identical, indicating the GPU is fully saturated. The CPU's high boost clock (5.10 GHz) and strong single-thread score (Cinebench R23 3246) are not the bottleneck.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti's memory bandwidth affect performance in this game?

A: The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 192-bit bus is adequate for 1080p but becomes insufficient at higher resolutions. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is also a constraint, as Microsoft Flight Simulator streams large textures, causing FPS to drop sharply from 1440p to 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target display resolution. For 1080p, the Medium preset (61.7 FPS) provides a smooth experience above 60 FPS, while High (44 FPS) and Ultra (46.1 FPS) are playable but not fluid. For 1440p, the Low preset (65.9 FPS) is the only option consistently above 60 FPS; Medium (51.3 FPS) is acceptable for slower flight, but High (38.2 FPS) and Ultra (38.1 FPS) are marginal. For 4K, only Low (48.9 FPS) is viable for casual play; Medium (35.3 FPS) is borderline, and High (24.8 FPS) and Ultra (24.6 FPS) are not recommended due to sub-30 FPS averages.

The data suggests that the best experience overall is at 1080p with Medium settings, achieving 61.7 FPS—a balance between visual quality and smoothness. If the user prioritizes frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low at 77 FPS is the highest possible performance. For those with a 1440p monitor, Low (65.9 FPS) is the only way to maintain 60+ FPS, while Medium (51.3 FPS) is a compromise. At 4K, the game is essentially not playable above Low settings, and even then, 48.9 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM and bandwidth limitations are the primary reasons for this, as the CPU's strong performance cannot compensate at higher resolutions.