Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT + AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Analysis

This combination pairs AMD's 8-core Zen 3 desktop processor with a mid-range RDNA 2 graphics card, producing a system that lands in the 2571st position out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The measured frame rates across three resolutions and four quality presets reveal a configuration that is playable at 1080p and 1440p with settings adjustments, but struggles to maintain smooth performance at 4K. The data shows a clear pattern: this is a GPU-limited pairing at higher resolutions, while the CPU's strong multi-threaded capabilities keep lower-resolution performance respectable.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT brings 8 cores and 16 threads to the flight deck, running at a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosting up to 4.80 GHz. This Zen 3 Vermeer chip, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, features 32 MB of shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The processor's 105 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it a flexible desktop part, and its benchmark results confirm strong multi-threaded capability: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23794 and a single-core score of 3359.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most evident at 1080p, where frame rates are highest and the graphics card has more headroom. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 101 FPS average, which is the highest measured result across the entire test matrix. The single-thread performance, reflected in the 3dmark single-thread score of 959 and PassMark single-thread score of 3535, helps maintain minimum frame rates when the simulator processes terrain data and physics. The R23 multi-core score of 23794 places this CPU in the 81st percentile among all processors, and its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (-0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 5 9600X (0.6%). This indicates the 5800XT holds its own against newer mobile and desktop parts in general compute, though flight simulation's demands often lean on both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance.

The 3dmark 16-thread score of 7683 and max-thread score of 7680 are nearly identical, suggesting the processor scales well up to its full thread count. PassMark multi-thread score of 28053 and integer math score of 93942 further underscore the CPU's ability to handle background simulation tasks. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS drops to 56, a 45 FPS decrease from Low settings — this delta is larger than what the GPU alone would explain, suggesting that at lower resolutions with higher settings, the CPU's thread scheduling and cache behavior play a more significant role in maintaining frame pacing.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's boost clock reaches 2589 MHz, with a game clock of 2359 MHz and base clock of 1968 MHz. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 32 ray accelerators.

The GPU's performance profile in this simulator is constrained by its 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory interface. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS falls to 33, which is the lowest measured result in the entire dataset. The PassMark G3D score of 16461 places this GPU in the 70th percentile among all graphics cards, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (0.7% delta), Intel Arc A350M (-0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (0.8%). The 3dmark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1804 reflects the card's DirectX 12 performance, which is directly relevant to Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering pipeline.

Memory bandwidth appears to be a limiting factor at higher resolutions. The 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the pixel throughput demands more from the 128-bit bus. The card's texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s are moderate figures, and the FP32 performance of 10.60 TFLOPS places it in the mid-range segment. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 72417 and OpenCL score of 80503 indicate solid compute capabilities, but the simulator's visual fidelity at Ultra settings with high-resolution textures can exceed what 8 GB of VRAM comfortably holds, contributing to the 33 FPS average at 4K Ultra.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals distinct scaling patterns across resolutions. At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 101 (Low) to 56 (Ultra), showing that even at the highest settings, the system remains playable. Moving to 1440p, the range shifts to 81 (Low) to 45 (Ultra), a consistent drop of approximately 20 FPS at Low settings and 11 FPS at Ultra settings. At 4K, the range compresses further to 60 (Low) to 33 (Ultra), with the Low setting losing 41 FPS compared to 1080p Low.

The scaling behavior indicates a transition from CPU-bounded to GPU-bounded performance as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the 101 FPS result suggests the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU efficiently, but the 45 FPS drop to 1080p Ultra points to GPU limitations even at this resolution. The 1440p Medium result of 63 FPS average, with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73, shows a stable experience. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 47 FPS with a minimum of 40 and maximum of 54 — this is the only 4K setting with min/max data, and it reveals significant frame time variance.

The percentage drops from 1080p to 4K are steepest at Low settings: 101 to 60 FPS represents a 40.6% reduction, while at Ultra, the drop from 56 to 33 FPS is a 41.1% reduction. Interestingly, the Medium preset shows the smallest relative drop: 78 to 47 FPS is a 39.7% reduction. This consistency suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity are the primary constraints across all settings at 4K, rather than a specific setting causing disproportionate performance loss. The 8 GB VRAM is likely the binding constraint, as the simulator's texture streaming at 4K exceeds what the 128-bit memory bus can efficiently manage.

Settings Recommendations

The data supports a clear recommendation hierarchy based on resolution targets. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 59 FPS average, which is within the playable range for a flight simulator where frame rates above 30 are generally acceptable for the genre's pace. The Ultra preset at 56 FPS is only 3 FPS lower, making it a viable choice for users prioritizing visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 78 FPS offers more headroom at 1080p, and the Low preset at 101 FPS provides maximum smoothness.

At 1440p, the High preset produces 47 FPS average, which is borderline for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 63 FPS is the sweet spot, offering a 16 FPS improvement over High while maintaining reasonable visual quality. The Ultra preset at 45 FPS is marginally below the High preset's 47 FPS, suggesting that the additional settings in Ultra are not worth the performance cost. Users with 1440p displays should select Medium for the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate.

At 4K, all settings produce averages below 60 FPS. The Low preset at 60 FPS exactly meets the 60 Hz refresh threshold, but the Medium preset at 47 FPS is more representative of a playable experience with acceptable visuals. The High preset at 35 FPS and Ultra at 33 FPS are both below the 40 FPS threshold that many users consider minimum for smooth flight simulation. Given that the Medium preset has documented min/max values of 40 and 54 FPS, it provides the most predictable performance at 4K, though users may prefer Low for guaranteed smoothness.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but only at 1080p with Low settings (101 FPS average) or Medium settings (78 FPS average). At 1440p, the Low preset achieves 81 FPS, but the Medium preset drops to 63 FPS. At 4K, only the Low preset reaches 60 FPS exactly.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware?

A: The 1440p Medium preset offers the best balance, delivering 63 FPS average with a minimum of 54 and maximum of 73 FPS. This provides smooth gameplay with moderate visual quality, avoiding the significant frame rate drops seen at 4K.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT has an average benchmark score of 29879, placing it in the 81st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (-0.3%), AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS (-0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 5 9600X (0.6%).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442, placing it in the 70th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 (0.7% delta), Intel Arc A350M (-0.8%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (1.1%).

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

A: At Medium settings, the system achieves 78 FPS average at 1080p and 47 FPS average at 4K, a difference of 31 FPS. The 4K Medium preset has a minimum of 40 FPS and maximum of 54 FPS, while the 1080p Medium preset ranges from 66 to 90 FPS.

Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM sufficient for this simulator at high resolutions?

A: The data suggests 8 GB is adequate at 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K, the frame rates drop significantly across all settings. The 4K High preset averages 35 FPS and 4K Ultra averages 33 FPS, indicating that the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth are limiting factors at this resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 101 FPS average
• Medium: 78 FPS average (minimum 66, maximum 90)
• High: 59 FPS average
• Ultra: 56 FPS average

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 81 FPS average
• Medium: 63 FPS average (minimum 54, maximum 73)
• High: 47 FPS average
• Ultra: 45 FPS average

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 60 FPS average
• Medium: 47 FPS average (minimum 40, maximum 54)
• High: 35 FPS average
• Ultra: 33 FPS average

The complete dataset shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step down from 1080p reduces the Low preset FPS by approximately 20, while the Ultra preset sees smaller absolute drops. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 45 FPS; at 1440p, it narrows to 36 FPS; and at 4K, it compresses to 27 FPS. This convergence indicates that the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution increases, with the CPU's strong multi-threaded performance (evidenced by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23794) being less relevant at higher pixel counts. The Medium preset consistently provides the most stable frame pacing, as evidenced by the min/max data available for that setting at each resolution, making it the recommended choice for users who prioritize consistent performance over maximum visual detail.