Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER reveal a clear pattern of resolution-dependent performance scaling. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings, the average FPS drops from 60.5 to 44.6, a reduction of roughly 26%. The subsequent step to 3840x2160 at High yields 34.8 FPS, another 22% decline from the 1440p result. This consistent, steep descent across each resolution tier indicates a system that is predominantly GPU-limited at higher pixel counts.

The Low preset tells a similar story but from a different starting point. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo produces 100.3 FPS, falling to 82.5 at 2560x1440 and then to 61.2 at 3840x2160. The absolute frame rates are higher, but the percentage reductions between resolutions are comparable, suggesting the rendering workload scales in a predictable manner with pixel count. Notably, even at 4K with Low settings, the system maintains over 60 FPS, which is a usable result for a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is less critical than in fast-paced genres.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (100.3 FPS) and Ultra (56.4 FPS) is 43.9 FPS. At 1440p, this spread narrows to 36.5 FPS (82.5 vs 46.0). At 4K, the spread compresses further to 27.6 FPS (61.2 vs 33.6). This convergence indicates that at 4K, the GPU's raw throughput becomes the limiting factor regardless of the graphics preset, whereas at 1080p, there is enough headroom for the settings to have a more pronounced effect on frame rate.

The data points to a component balance where the RTX 2060 SUPER's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p operation but begin to strain at 4K Ultra. The 34.8 FPS at 4K High and 33.6 FPS at 4K Ultra are below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider the baseline for smooth gameplay, indicating that 4K is only viable with reduced settings. The 61.2 FPS at 4K Low, however, shows that the hardware can still deliver a playable experience at the highest resolution if visual fidelity is sacrificed.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured rows, the Medium preset emerges as the most balanced choice for this combination across all three resolutions. At 1920x1080 Medium, the system delivers 76.1 FPS, which is 15.6 FPS higher than High and 19.7 FPS lower than Low. This represents a substantial improvement over Low in visual quality while maintaining a frame rate well above 60 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the 61.3 FPS average is just above the 60 FPS threshold, making it a viable option for users with 1440p displays who want a mix of detail and smoothness.

For 4K operation, the Medium preset at 46.5 FPS is a compromise that may be acceptable for a flight simulator, where the pace is slower and lower frame rates are more tolerable than in competitive shooters. The High preset at 4K drops to 34.8 FPS, which is noticeably less fluid. The Ultra preset at 4K, producing only 33.6 FPS, offers marginal visual gains over High for a negligible performance cost, suggesting that the Ultra settings at this resolution are not efficiently utilizing the GPU's resources.

The Low preset, while delivering the highest frame rates (100.3 FPS at 1080p, 82.5 FPS at 1440p, 61.2 FPS at 4K), should be reserved for scenarios where maximum frame rate is paramount, such as recording or streaming. For typical gameplay, Medium provides the best experience per the measured rows, offering a 26% performance uplift over High at 1080p (76.1 vs 60.5) while presumably retaining most of the visual features that matter in a flight simulator, such as terrain detail and cloud rendering. At 1440p, the 61.3 FPS at Medium is nearly identical to the 60.5 FPS at 1080p High, indicating that users can trade resolution for settings without sacrificing frame rate.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X provides the computational foundation for this system, with 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture. Its base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz, coupled with a 32 MB shared L3 cache, position it as a capable processor for handling the complex simulation logic of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The benchmark data shows a single-thread score of 921 in 3dmark and 3193 in Cinebench R23 single-core, indicating strong per-core performance that is essential for the game's main thread.

Multithreaded performance is also robust, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22620 and a Passmark multithread score of 26612. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to utilize multiple cores for tasks such as terrain streaming, weather simulation, and AI traffic. The 5700X's 16 threads provide ample parallelism for these workloads. The 3dmark results show a scaling pattern from 1821 at 2 threads to 6850 at max threads, with the 8-thread score of 5768 representing 84% of the max-thread score. This indicates that the processor scales well up to 8 threads, with diminishing returns beyond that point, which aligns with the game's typical thread utilization.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 83 versus all CPUs places it in the upper tier of processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-11900KF with an average score of 26196 (a delta of 0.1% from the 5700X's 26214) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X with 26272 (a delta of -0.2%). These close margins suggest that the 5700X is not a bottleneck in this configuration; its performance is competitive with newer and higher-clocked alternatives. In the context of this game's results, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and simulation data without becoming the limiting factor. The measured FPS patterns across resolutions, with clear GPU-bound scaling, confirm that the 5700X is providing sufficient headroom.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER ranks 1265 out of 1795 total combos. This places it in the 70th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 30% of configurations perform better, while 70% perform worse. Given that the GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 63 and the CPU's percentile is 83, the combo rank of 1265 is consistent with a system where the GPU is the weaker component.

The rank of 1265 out of 1795 suggests that this is a mid-to-upper tier configuration. The RTX 2060 SUPER, with an average benchmark score of 19774, sits just above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (19706, delta 0.3%) and the RTX 2070 (19680, delta 0.5%). These rival GPUs are all within 1.3% of each other, indicating that the 2060 SUPER is positioned at a performance plateau where small differences in synthetic benchmarks translate to similarly small differences in real-world gaming.

When considering the CPU, the 5700X's average score of 26214 is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X (26272) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U (26262). This tight clustering means that CPU choice among these rivals would have minimal impact on the game's frame rates. The combo's rank of 1265 is therefore largely determined by the GPU's capabilities. A system with a faster GPU, such as one from the RTX 30-series, would rank higher, while a system with a slower GPU would rank lower. This data indicates that users looking to improve performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator should prioritize GPU upgrades over CPU upgrades, as the 5700X is already performing at a level that exceeds the needs of the 2060 SUPER.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is the primary determinant of this system's gaming performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, the GPU provides 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a critical resource for a game that streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU's base clock of 1470 MHz and boost clock of 1650 MHz, built on the Turing architecture with 2176 shading units, deliver 7.181 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The measured FPS data shows clear GPU-scaling behavior. At 1080p, the GPU can push frame rates from 56.4 at Ultra to 100.3 at Low. The 1080p Ultra result of 56.4 FPS is close to the 60 FPS target, and the High preset at 60.5 FPS just exceeds it. This indicates that at 1080p, the GPU is the limiting factor at higher settings, but there is enough headroom at lower settings to achieve high frame rates. At 1440p, the GPU's workload increases, and the Ultra preset drops to 46.0 FPS, while Low maintains 82.5 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is severely constrained, with Ultra at 33.6 FPS and High at 34.8 FPS.

The GPU's 63rd percentile ranking versus all GPUs places it in the middle of the performance distribution. Its nearest rivals are the GTX TITAN (0.3% faster), RTX 2070 (0.5% slower), and Quadro K5200 (0.8% slower). These margins are negligible, indicating that the 2060 SUPER is at a performance tier where minor architectural differences do not translate into meaningful FPS variations in this game. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for 1080p and 1440p at all settings, as evidenced by the playable frame rates, but at 4K Ultra, the game may be exceeding the VRAM's comfortable capacity, contributing to the low 33.6 FPS result.

The GPU's memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and the resulting 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are well-matched to the CPU's 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, ensuring that data transfer between the two components is not a bottleneck. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides sufficient bandwidth for the GPU's needs. Overall, the RTX 2060 SUPER is a competent mid-range GPU that can handle Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p and 1440p with reasonable settings, but it is not suited for 4K gaming at high detail levels. The data suggests that for 4K, users should select Low settings (61.2 FPS) or accept frame rates in the 30s at higher presets.