Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 5 7600 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

This combination pairs a modern 6-core Zen 4 processor with a Turing-generation GPU that has been end-of-life for years, and the benchmark results reflect that split personality. The RTX 2060 SUPER sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 7600 lands at the 78th percentile among CPUs, so the GPU is the clear bottleneck in most scenarios. Across twelve measured configurations spanning three resolutions and four quality presets, this system delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K Ultra. The data shows a system that can handle Microsoft Flight Simulator competently at mainstream settings, provided you manage expectations at higher resolutions.

FAQ

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

A: 1080p is the sweet spot. The measured average frame rates range from 56 FPS at Ultra to 101 FPS at Low, with Medium hitting 78 FPS. At 1440p, averages drop to 45–81 FPS depending on preset, while 4K only reaches 33–60 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 18,093, which is 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159) and 0.5% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 460 by 1.5% and the Intel Arc A770M by 1.6%, though those deltas are small enough to be within run-to-run variance.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7600 holding back the GPU?

A: At lower resolutions and settings, the CPU becomes more relevant. The processor's single-thread score of 999 in 3DMark and 1,852 in Cinebench R23 suggest strong per-core performance, but at 1080p Low the system hits 101 FPS, which may approach CPU limits in a flight simulator's complex scenery rendering.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for these components?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 had a launch MSRP of $229. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER had a launch MSRP of 399 USD. Both figures are historical and do not reflect current market pricing.

Q: Does this system support real-time ray tracing in this game?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER includes 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so it is technically capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing. However, the measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator does not include ray tracing-specific benchmarks, so actual performance impact remains unquantified in this dataset.

Q: How much VRAM does the GPU have, and is it sufficient?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. For this game, the measured results show playable frame rates at 4K Low (60 FPS) and 1440p High (47 FPS), suggesting the VRAM capacity is adequate for these settings, though the GPU's overall compute limits become apparent at Ultra presets.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is the primary performance limiter in this pairing. Its boost clock of 1650 MHz and base clock of 1470 MHz, combined with 2,176 shading units and 64 ROPs, deliver a 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory operates at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit interface, yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications place the GPU at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18,093.

The measured frame rates show a clear pattern: the GPU's capabilities degrade significantly as resolution increases. At 1080p, the system achieves 56 FPS at Ultra and 59 FPS at High, which are respectable figures for a flight simulator. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 45 FPS and High to 47 FPS — still playable but approaching the threshold where stutter becomes noticeable. At 4K, only the Low preset (60 FPS) and Medium preset (47 FPS average) remain within playable territory, while High (35 FPS) and Ultra (33 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS target.

The GPU's DirectX 12 performance score of 61 in Passmark suggests it handles modern APIs adequately, but the 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores indicate that ray tracing and DLSS features are present yet may not deliver transformative gains in this title. The GPU's nearest rivals — the RTX 3060 Mobile, Radeon Pro 5700, RX 460, and Arc A770M — all score within 1.6% of each other, underscoring that this GPU sits in a crowded performance tier where minor architectural differences matter less than driver optimization and thermal headroom.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 provides a robust foundation for this pairing, with 6 cores and 12 threads running at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Built on TSMC's 5 nm process with the Zen 4 architecture, it includes 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The processor's benchmark scores are strong: a single-thread score of 999 in 3DMark and 1,852 in Cinebench R23, plus a multi-thread score of 12,735 in Cinebench R23 and 27,058 in Passmark.

The CPU's percentile rank of 78 places it well above the GPU's 62nd percentile, meaning the processor has headroom to spare in most gaming scenarios. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (0.2% higher average score), AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS (0.3% lower), Intel Core i9-11900KF (0.4% higher), and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U (0.5% higher) — all within a narrow performance band. The 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (83.2 GB/s bandwidth) keep power delivery and memory bandwidth ample for this workload.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role becomes more pronounced at lower resolutions and settings where the GPU is less taxed. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 101 FPS, and at 1080p Medium it hits 78 FPS — these figures suggest the CPU is keeping up with the GPU's output. The single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 999, Geekbench single-core of 2,521) is critical for a flight simulator that must process terrain streaming, weather systems, and aircraft systems in real time. The data shows no obvious CPU bottleneck at any measured configuration, as frame rates scale consistently with resolution and settings changes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset includes twelve measured configurations, each with an average FPS and some with minimum/maximum values. At 1920x1080, the system delivers: Low at 101 FPS, Medium at 78 FPS (min 67, max 90), High at 59 FPS, and Ultra at 56 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 45 FPS, which represents a 44% performance drop from the lowest to highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the figures are: Low at 81 FPS, Medium at 63 FPS (min 54, max 73), High at 47 FPS, and Ultra at 45 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 36 FPS, a 44% drop that mirrors the 1080p scaling pattern. Notably, the jump from High to Ultra at 1440p costs only 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 60 FPS, Medium at 47 FPS (min 40, max 54), High at 35 FPS, and Ultra at 33 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra delta is 27 FPS, a 45% drop. The minimum frame rates at 4K Medium (40 FPS) and the 33 FPS average at Ultra indicate that 4K gaming is only viable with the Low or Medium presets.

The minimum FPS data, available only for Medium presets, shows consistent ratios: 67/78 at 1080p (86% of average), 54/63 at 1440p (86%), and 40/47 at 4K (85%). This consistency suggests stable frame pacing regardless of resolution, with the GPU maintaining its performance profile across the board.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep but predictable. At Low settings, 1080p yields 101 FPS, 1440p yields 81 FPS, and 4K yields 60 FPS — a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium, the progression is 78 → 63 → 47 FPS, a 40% drop. At High, it is 59 → 47 → 35 FPS, a 41% drop. At Ultra, it is 56 → 45 → 33 FPS, a 41% reduction.

This uniform ~40% scaling across all presets indicates that the GPU is the limiting component throughout the resolution range. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the 1080p-to-1440p gap to be smaller than the 1440p-to-4K gap, since the CPU would cap performance at lower resolutions. Instead, the scaling is linear, meaning the RTX 2060 SUPER's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints.

The memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s and pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s are adequate for 1080p and 1440p but become strained at 4K, where the GPU must process over four times the pixels of 1080p. The fact that 4K Low (60 FPS) barely matches 1080p Ultra (56 FPS) underscores this limitation. Users targeting 4K will need to accept Low or Medium presets, while 1440p offers a more balanced experience with High settings still playable at 47 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the Medium preset at 1440p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance for this system. The 63 FPS average with a 54 FPS minimum provides smooth gameplay without dropping below the 50 FPS threshold where flight simulators become noticeably stuttery. The jump from Medium to High at 1440p costs 16 FPS (63 → 47), which is a substantial loss for marginal visual gains, making Medium the pragmatic choice.

For users prioritizing frame rate, 1080p Low at 101 FPS is the clear winner, though the visual fidelity will be noticeably reduced. A middle ground is 1080p Medium at 78 FPS (min 67), which keeps frame rates well above 60 FPS while retaining more graphical detail. The High preset at 1080p (59 FPS) and Ultra at 1080p (56 FPS) are nearly identical in performance, so if you want the best visuals at 1080p, Ultra is only 3 FPS slower than High and delivers the full experience.

At 4K, the choice is stark: Low at 60 FPS is the only preset that maintains a 60 FPS average, while Medium at 47 FPS (min 40) is acceptable for less demanding scenarios. High and Ultra at 4K (35 and 33 FPS) are only suitable for screenshots or non-interactive viewing. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 4K Low and Medium, but the GPU's compute limits prevent higher presets from being viable.

The overall recommendation is to run 1440p Medium for the best experience, dropping to 1080p High or Ultra if you prefer maximum detail, and reserving 4K for Low or Medium when visual fidelity is secondary to smoothness. This system's GPU is the binding constraint, and the data shows that respecting its limits yields a thoroughly playable flight simulator experience.