Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

This pairing combines a high-end Zen 4 desktop processor with an end-of-life Turing-based GPU, producing a system that is heavily constrained by graphics throughput in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The measured data shows a clear pattern: the GTX 1660 SUPER becomes the limiting factor as resolution climbs, while the Ryzen 5 7600X’s strong single-thread performance provides sufficient headroom for the simulator’s CPU-bound rendering tasks. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 77 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 24.2 FPS, illustrating the GPU’s inability to sustain playable frame rates at higher visual fidelity. The combination ranks 1605 out of 1795 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower quartile of system pairings.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS degradation from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, but the magnitude of the drop reveals where the bottleneck shifts. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 77 FPS at 1920x1080 to 63.4 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 43 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 44.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K, indicating that even at minimal graphical load, the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot keep pace with the pixel count increase. The 1440p result of 63.4 FPS is still playable, but the jump to 4K cuts performance by roughly a third, confirming that the GPU is the primary constraint at this resolution.

At High settings, the pattern becomes more pronounced. The system delivers 43.2 FPS at 1080p, 36.4 FPS at 1440p, and 26.2 FPS at 4K. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K is 39.4%, which is smaller in percentage terms than the Low setting drop, but the absolute numbers are far less comfortable. This suggests that at higher settings, the GPU is already saturated at 1080p, so the additional pixel load at 4K has diminishing impact relative to the already-low baseline. The data implies that the GTX 1660 SUPER’s 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for high-fidelity flight simulation at elevated resolutions.

Ultra settings tell a similar story with even harsher outcomes. The system manages 40.5 FPS at 1080p, 36.4 FPS at 1440p, and 24.2 FPS at 4K. Interestingly, the 1440p Ultra result exactly matches the 1440p High result at 36.4 FPS, suggesting that the GPU hits a hard performance ceiling somewhere between these settings, likely due to memory bandwidth or shading unit limits. The 4K Ultra figure of 24.2 FPS is below the threshold for smooth simulation, making this resolution impractical for this hardware combo.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: At 4K, the best measured result is 43 FPS on Low settings, but this drops to 26.2 FPS on High and 24.2 FPS on Ultra. These figures indicate that 4K is only viable at the lowest preset, and even then, the frame rate is below the 60 FPS target most simulation enthusiasts prefer.

Q: How does the CPU influence performance in this game?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X posts a single-thread PassMark score of 4135 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3406, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. This strong single-thread showing suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 77 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 delivers the most playable frame rates across all settings, ranging from 40.5 FPS on Ultra to 77 FPS on Low. The 2560x1440 results are mixed, with only Low settings exceeding 60 FPS.

Q: Does the GTX 1660 SUPER hold back the Ryzen 5 7600X?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 26272 places it near the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U, while the GPU’s percentile rank of 55 is far lower. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 12699 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1278 reflect its modest compute capabilities relative to the CPU.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 1605 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 10% of all pairings. This low rank is attributable to the GPU's limited performance headroom.

Q: What settings provide a 60 FPS experience?

A: Only 1080p Low (77 FPS) and 1440p Low (63.4 FPS) achieve 60 FPS or higher. The 1080p Medium preset comes close at 61.8 FPS, but all other configurations fall short of this target.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is the clear performance limiter in this pairing. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is insufficient for the high-resolution textures and dense scenery that Microsoft Flight Simulator loads. The GPU's base clock of 1530 MHz and boost clock of 1785 MHz are respectable for its class, but the 1408 shading units and 48 ROPs cannot process the geometric and lighting complexity of the sim at higher settings.

The GPU's benchmark scores paint a consistent picture. It achieves a PassMark G3D score of 12699, placing it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1278. In compute tasks, the PassMark GPU compute score of 5076 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 62664 show modest throughput. These numbers align with the measured FPS data, which shows the GPU struggling to maintain 30 FPS at 4K on any preset above Low.

The VRAM capacity is another critical factor. At 6 GB, the GTX 1660 SUPER likely encounters memory pressure when the simulator loads high-resolution terrain and aircraft models at 1440p and 4K. This explains why the High and Ultra presets at 1440p both produce 36.4 FPS — the GPU may be swapping textures or reducing draw distances to compensate for the memory limit. The memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) provides the bandwidth, but the capacity ceiling is a more fundamental constraint.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing frame rate, the 1080p Low preset delivers the best measured experience at 77 FPS, providing smooth simulation performance without stutter. The 1440p Low preset at 63.4 FPS is also viable for users with higher-resolution monitors who can tolerate slightly reduced visual fidelity. The 1080p Medium preset at 61.8 FPS offers a balanced compromise, retaining more graphical detail while staying above the 60 FPS threshold.

For visual quality, the 1080p High preset at 43.2 FPS represents the highest fidelity setting that remains playable, though users will notice a significant frame rate drop. The Ultra presets at any resolution are not recommended for this combo, as the best Ultra result is 40.5 FPS at 1080p, and the 4K Ultra figure of 24.2 FPS is below playable thresholds. The data suggests that Medium settings at 1080p or Low settings at 1440p are the most sensible starting points, with the option to adjust individual quality parameters based on personal tolerance for frame rate variations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its best results across all presets. Low settings yield an average of 77 FPS, Medium achieves 61.8 FPS, High drops to 43.2 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 40.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 15.2 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is just 2.7 FPS, indicating diminishing returns from the highest preset tier.

At 2560x1440, performance falls across the board. Low settings deliver 63.4 FPS, Medium produces 47.5 FPS, and both High and Ultra settle at 36.4 FPS. The identical High and Ultra results suggest a hard performance wall, likely caused by the GPU's memory subsystem or shading unit saturation. The difference between Low and Medium is 15.9 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 11.1 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unsuitable for serious simulation. Low settings manage 43 FPS, Medium drops to 32.3 FPS, High falls to 26.2 FPS, and Ultra is nearly unplayable at 24.2 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Low settings costs 20.4 FPS, while the same resolution jump at Ultra costs 12.2 FPS. This data confirms that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the dominant constraint at 4K, and even the CPU's strong single-thread performance cannot compensate for the GPU's limited fill rate and memory bandwidth.