Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured data for the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT reveals a configuration that scales predictably with resolution and settings. This combination sits in the 1232nd position out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, a ranking that reflects its performance ceiling in this specific flight sim.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K shows a clear and consistent drop in frame rates across all settings, indicating that the graphics card becomes the primary bottleneck as pixel count increases. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 102.3 FPS at 1920x1080 to 80.5 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of roughly 21%, before dropping further to 59.9 FPS at 3840x2160, which represents a 41% decrease from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline at 4K suggests the RX 6600 XT is being pushed to its limits, as the raw pixel throughput required at 3840x2160 overwhelms the GPU’s capabilities.

Moving to Medium settings, the same pattern emerges, with frame rates decreasing from 80.2 FPS at 1080p to 62.2 FPS at 1440p, and then to 49 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K narrows slightly in percentage terms compared to Low, but the absolute loss of 31.2 FPS is still substantial. High settings show a similar trajectory, starting at 57.8 FPS at 1080p, falling to 49.5 FPS at 1440p, and bottoming out at 35 FPS at 4K. The scaling here indicates that while the CPU can maintain playable frame rates at lower resolutions, the GPU’s workload grows exponentially with resolution, making 4K a challenging target for this combo.

Ultra settings are the most punishing, with the average frame rate at 1080p already down to 54.1 FPS, which then drops to 44.5 FPS at 1440p and 31.4 FPS at 4K. The difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 22.7 FPS, a 42% reduction that mirrors the Low setting’s relative decline. This consistency across settings suggests that the resolution scaling is largely independent of the quality preset, reinforcing that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and processing power are the limiting factors at higher resolutions. The data shows that 1080p is the sweet spot for this pairing, with 1440p still viable at lower settings, while 4K demands significant compromises to maintain playability.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 23 chip, featuring 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, which provides a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a critical factor in the game’s performance, as Microsoft Flight Simulator’s vast scenery data can quickly fill the frame buffer, especially at higher resolutions. The GPU’s boost clock of 2589 MHz and game clock of 2359 MHz allow for solid compute throughput, but the 10.60 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is modest for a flight sim that relies heavily on geometry and texture streaming.

The GPU’s 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs contribute to its pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s, which is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming but struggles to keep up with 4K demands. The 32 ray tracing cores are present, but the game’s primary load is rasterization, so their impact on these results is minimal. In benchmark comparisons, the RX 6600 XT’s average score of 27985 places it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which scores 27956, a delta of just 0.1%. This close margin indicates that the RX 6600 XT performs similarly to an older flagship card, which is relevant when considering its 8 GB VRAM capacity—an amount that may become a constraint in a game known for high-resolution texture packs.

The GPU’s 160 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface are adequate for this workload, but the data suggests that the card’s memory bandwidth is the key bottleneck at 4K. At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 102.3 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 31.4 FPS, a 69% reduction that correlates with the increased memory pressure. The RX 6600 XT’s standing relative to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, which scores 28238 and is 0.9% ahead, shows that while the card is competitive in synthetic benchmarks, its real-world performance in this flight sim is constrained by its memory subsystem.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT achieves a rank of 1232 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 31st percentile of all configurations. This ranking is notably lower than the individual component percentiles, as the CPU sits in the 83rd percentile of all processors and the GPU in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The discrepancy suggests that this particular pairing does not synergize well in this game, likely due to the CPU’s integrated graphics heritage, which limits its PCIe lanes to Gen 3, potentially throttling the GPU’s data transfer.

The CPU, an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 3 part with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, has an average benchmark score of 25626, which is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U’s 25706, a delta of -0.3%. This close alignment in synthetic tests does not translate to gaming performance, as the 5700G’s performance in flight sim is more dependent on its single-thread capabilities, which are solid but not exceptional. The combo’s low rank indicates that while each component is mid-to-high tier on its own, their combined performance in this game is held back by the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions and the CPU’s inability to fully feed the GPU at lower resolutions.

Compared to other combos in the database, this pairing is decidedly average, with the rank suggesting that many less expensive or more balanced configurations outperform it in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data implies that the RX 6600 XT is the weaker link, as the CPU’s 3DMark scores, such as 6629 for 16 threads and 899 for single thread, show a capable processor that should not be the primary bottleneck in most scenarios. The combo’s placement at 1232 out of 1795 means it beats roughly 31% of tested systems, a figure that aligns with the GPU’s 71st percentile, hinting that the graphics card’s performance ceiling defines the overall experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo delivers its best results across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 102.3 FPS, which is more than sufficient for smooth gameplay on most displays. Medium settings reduce this to 80.2 FPS, a 21.6% drop, while High settings yield 57.8 FPS, and Ultra settings bring the average down to 54.1 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is just 3.7 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional effects, such as enhanced shadows and reflections, do not heavily tax the GPU at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance degrades noticeably but remains playable at lower settings. Low settings average 80.5 FPS, which is a 21.3% reduction from 1080p, while Medium settings produce 62.2 FPS, and High settings drop to 49.5 FPS. Ultra settings at 1440p are the most demanding, yielding just 44.5 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players prefer. The data shows that 1440p is only recommended for Low or Medium settings if a consistent frame rate above 60 FPS is desired.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 59.9 FPS, which is just shy of 60 FPS, making it the only 4K setting that approaches smoothness. Medium settings produce 49 FPS, High settings drop to 35 FPS, and Ultra settings yield a marginal 31.4 FPS. The 4K results indicate that this configuration is not suited for high-fidelity flight sim at this resolution, as even Low settings require a significant compromise in visual quality to stay near playable levels. The overall pattern across all resolutions shows that the combo is best utilized at 1080p, where it can handle Ultra settings, or at 1440p with Medium settings, while 4K should be reserved for Low settings at best.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the optimal resolution, as it is the only setting where the combo exceeds 100 FPS (102.3 FPS at Low) and maintains 54.1 FPS at Ultra, making it suitable for high refresh rate displays.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RX 6600 XT’s average benchmark score of 27985 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti’s 27956, with a delta of just 0.1%, indicating virtually identical synthetic performance between the two cards.

Q: Why is the combo rank lower than the individual component percentiles?

A: The combo ranks 1232 out of 1795, while the CPU is in the 83rd percentile and the GPU in the 71st percentile, suggesting that the pairing does not optimize performance in this game, likely due to the CPU’s Gen 3 PCIe lanes limiting GPU data transfer.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops from 54.1 FPS at 1920x1080 to 31.4 FPS at 3840x2160, a reduction of 22.7 FPS or approximately 42%, showing a severe performance penalty at 4K.

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the combo only exceeds 60 FPS at Low settings (80.5 FPS), while Medium settings produce 62.2 FPS, which is just above 60 FPS, but High and Ultra settings fall below this threshold at 49.5 FPS and 44.5 FPS respectively.

Q: How much VRAM does the RX 6600 XT have, and does it impact 4K performance?

A: The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, and the 4K results, which drop to 31.4 FPS at Ultra, suggest that this memory capacity and bandwidth are insufficient for the game’s high-resolution demands.