Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge), with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It features 32 MB of shared L3 cache, with 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. This is a modern desktop part on the AM5 socket, supporting DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a flexible choice for builders, though in this game’s measured results, the CPU’s headroom is not the primary constraint.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 9600X shows strong single-thread performance with a 3DMark single-thread score of 1253 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2183.5. Multi-threaded results are also solid: Cinebench R23 multi-core hits 17528.5, and Geekbench multi-core reaches 14438. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7585 and max-thread score of 7590 indicate that scaling beyond 8 threads is minimal, which is typical for a 6-core/12-thread part. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to be heavily single-thread-bound in many scenarios, the 9600X’s single-core strength (placing it in the 81st percentile among all CPUs) is the relevant factor. The data shows that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU can feed the GPU adequately, but the bottleneck shifts to the graphics card as resolution and quality rise.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (deltaPct 0.2), Ryzen 7 7840H (deltaPct -0.5), Ryzen 7 5800XT (deltaPct -0.6), and Ryzen 7 8845HS (deltaPct -0.8). The 9600X sits within 1% of these parts, meaning its overall compute capability is comparable to those chips, but its architectural advantages (Zen 5, higher boost clock) likely help in lightly-threaded workloads like flight simulators. In the measured FPS data, the CPU’s role is more evident at 1920x1080 Low, where the average FPS reaches 92 — this is the highest result across all configurations, indicating that the CPU is not holding back the GPU at that setting. At higher resolutions, the gap between Low and Ultra settings grows, which points to the GPU becoming the limiting factor.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is a Turing-architecture GPU (TU106 chip) with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1365 MHz with a boost clock of 1680 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The card has 1920 shading units, 120 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 30 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. It delivers 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 12.90 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). With a 160 W TDP and a suggested 450 W PSU, it is a dual-slot card that requires a single 8-pin power connector.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM is a critical consideration. The game is known for loading large textures and terrain data, and at higher settings or resolutions, the 6 GB frame buffer can become a constraint. The measured FPS data reflects this: at 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS drops to 30, while at Low it reaches 55. The VRAM pressure is likely the reason the Ultra preset at 4K produces such low numbers — the card cannot hold all the required assets, leading to texture streaming stalls that pull the average down. At 1920x1080, the 2060 fares better, with Ultra averaging 51 FPS and Low averaging 92 FPS, indicating that 1080p is the sweet spot for this GPU in this title.

The RTX 2060’s average benchmark score places it in the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being the GTX 580 (deltaPct 0), Radeon 680M (deltaPct 0.1), RTX 3050 OEM (deltaPct 0.6), and Radeon RX 7600 (deltaPct 0.8). The near-identical scores of these rivals (within 0.8%) suggest that the 2060 is positioned in a crowded performance tier. However, its Turing architecture brings features like DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2), which is relevant for modern games. In this flight simulator, the GPU’s raw compute is sufficient for playable frame rates at 1080p, but the 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus become limiting at 1440p and 4K, especially with higher quality presets.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers an average of 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 and maximum of 82, which is a smooth, playable experience for a flight simulator where fluid camera movement matters. The High preset at 1080p averages 54 FPS — still playable but with less headroom for demanding scenes. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 51 FPS, which is only 3 FPS lower than High, but the visual gains may not justify the extra load on the GPU. Low at 1080p hits 92 FPS average, but the visual quality drop is substantial, making Medium the best balance between fidelity and performance.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset averages 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 and maximum of 66. This is the most consistent option at this resolution, as High drops to 43 FPS and Ultra falls to 41 FPS. Low at 1440p averages 74 FPS, but again sacrifices too much visual detail. For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where cockpit readability and terrain clarity are important, Medium at 1440p is the recommended preset — it keeps the frame rate above 60 FPS on average while retaining enough detail for a decent experience. The minimum of 49 FPS indicates some stutter in heavy scenes, but it remains playable.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more challenging. The Medium preset averages 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 49, which is borderline playable but prone to dips. High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra drops to 30 FPS, both of which are too low for a smooth sim experience. Low at 4K averages 55 FPS, which is the only preset that approaches playability, but the low-quality textures and shadows detract from the immersion. For 4K, the data suggests that Medium is the highest preset that remains tolerable, but users should expect frame rates in the 30-40 range. If 60 FPS is a hard requirement, 1080p Medium is the clear choice.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all tested configurations, meaning that roughly 22% of combos perform worse, while the majority outperform it. The rank reflects the RTX 2060’s age and VRAM limitation, as well as the fact that flight simulators often benefit from GPUs with larger memory pools. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance prevents it from being the bottleneck, but the GPU’s 6 GB VRAM caps the overall experience.

The combo’s rank is consistent with the measured FPS data — it can handle 1080p well, but struggles at higher resolutions. For context, the GPU’s percentile rank (58th) and CPU’s percentile rank (81st) suggest that the CPU is a much stronger component than the GPU. This imbalance means that in this game, the RTX 2060 is holding back the 9600X; upgrading the GPU would yield a larger performance gain than upgrading the CPU. The combo rank of 2912 out of 3714 indicates that while this setup is not the worst, it is far from optimal for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which favors high-end GPUs with more VRAM.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo consistently achieves playable frame rates across all presets. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 71, while at 1440p Medium it drops to 58, and at 4K Medium it falls to 42.

Q: Does the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM limit performance in this game?

A: Yes, the measured results show a significant drop in FPS when moving from 1080p to 1440p and 4K, particularly at High and Ultra settings. The 6 GB frame buffer is insufficient for the large textures and terrain data at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the 4K Ultra average of 30 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 9600X compare to its rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The 9600X’s average benchmark score is within 1% of the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (deltaPct 0.2), Ryzen 7 7840H (deltaPct -0.5), Ryzen 7 5800XT (deltaPct -0.6), and Ryzen 7 8845HS (deltaPct -0.8). Its single-thread score of 2183.5 in Cinebench R23 is particularly strong for this game’s engine.

Q: Is the Medium preset the best overall choice?

A: Yes, across all three resolutions, Medium provides the highest playable frame rate with acceptable visual quality. At 1080p it averages 71 FPS, at 1440p it averages 58 FPS, and at 4K it averages 42 FPS, each with a minimum FPS that remains above 36.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle tier. This is largely due to the GPU’s limitations rather than the CPU, which ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Can this combo handle 4K gaming in this simulator?

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 55 FPS. At Medium, the average drops to 42 FPS, and at Ultra it falls to 30 FPS, suggesting that 4K is not a practical target for this combo beyond Low quality.

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

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo performs across three resolutions and four quality presets. All figures below are average FPS unless otherwise noted, with minimum and maximum values provided where available.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 92 FPS average
• Medium: 71 FPS average (minimum 61, maximum 82)
• High: 54 FPS average
• Ultra: 51 FPS average

At 1080p, the combo delivers the highest frame rates. Low settings push the average to 92 FPS, which is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. Medium offers a solid 71 FPS with a minimum of 61, ensuring that even in dense scenery, the frame rate stays above 60. High and Ultra are close at 54 and 51 FPS respectively, indicating that the GPU is nearing its limit at these settings. The 3 FPS difference between High and Ultra is minimal, so Ultra is not penalized heavily at this resolution.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 74 FPS average
• Medium: 58 FPS average (minimum 49, maximum 66)
• High: 43 FPS average
• Ultra: 41 FPS average

At 1440p, the frame rates drop noticeably. Low remains smooth at 74 FPS, but Medium is the highest playable preset with a 58 FPS average and a minimum of 49. High and Ultra fall to 43 and 41 FPS respectively, which are below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel sluggish in a flight sim. The minimum FPS of 49 on Medium indicates occasional dips, but the overall experience is acceptable. The 17 FPS gap between Low and Medium suggests that the GPU’s VRAM and bandwidth are starting to become limiting factors.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 55 FPS average
• Medium: 42 FPS average (minimum 36, maximum 49)
• High: 32 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

At 4K, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 55 FPS, which is decent, but Medium drops to 42 FPS with a minimum of 36, making it borderline. High and Ultra are in the low 30s, which is not suitable for a smooth experience. The 25 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is the largest across all resolutions, highlighting the GPU’s inability to handle the increased texture and shading load. The minimum FPS of 36 on Medium suggests that even this preset will stutter in complex scenes, making 4K a challenging target for this hardware.

In summary, the measured data shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with Medium providing the best balance of performance and quality. At 1440p, Medium is the only viable option for a playable experience, while 4K should only be attempted at Low settings. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance ensures that it is not the bottleneck at any resolution, but the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus are the primary constraints at higher resolutions.