Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-14600K is a 14-core, 20-thread desktop processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process with a 125 W TDP. It carries a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 24 MB shared L3 cache. In synthetic workloads, the chip posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32881 and a single-core score of 4642, while Geekbench results show 15846 multi-core and 2803 single-core points. Its PassMark multithread score of 38682 and single-thread score of 4270 reinforce a profile of strong per-thread performance combined with substantial parallel throughput.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is most evident at lower resolutions and lower graphics settings, where the rendering pipeline is less demanding on the GPU. At 1080p Low settings, the combo reaches 102.9 FPS, the highest recorded figure in this dataset. That result indicates the processor is capable of feeding the GPU with enough draw calls and simulation data to exceed 100 FPS in less visually intense scenes. The 14-core configuration with 20 threads—comprising both performance and efficiency cores—helps handle the flight simulator’s background simulation tasks, such as terrain streaming and physics calculations, while the high single-core boost clock ensures responsive frame pacing in cockpit views where the main thread often becomes the bottleneck.

Benchmark comparisons show the i5-14600K sits within a tight performance band relative to its nearest rivals. It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X by just 0.2% in average benchmark score, and it leads the Intel Core i5-14600KF by 0.4% and the AMD EPYC 4345P by 0.9%. The gap to the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 1% in favor of the i5-14600K. These sub-1% deltas matter for context: the CPU is not a differentiator at the top end, but its balanced multi-core and single-core scores place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, meaning it performs better than most processors in the database. For a simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance, the 4642-point Cinebench R23 single-core result suggests the CPU is well positioned to avoid holding back the GPU in most scenarios.

The data shows that at 1080p Medium, FPS drops to 76.0, and at 1080p High it falls further to 61.5. This scaling pattern, where FPS decreases as settings increase at the same resolution, implies that the CPU maintains a relatively stable workload while the GPU takes on more rendering responsibility. The fact that 1080p Ultra still yields 54.1 FPS indicates the processor does not become a hard limiter even at maximum settings on this resolution, though the margin narrows considerably compared to Low settings.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s base clock is 1968 MHz, with a game clock of 2359 MHz and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. Shader throughput is rated at 10.60 TFLOPS FP32, with 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The card draws up to 160 W and connects via PCIe 4.0 x8.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the RX 6600 XT shows a clear performance ceiling at higher resolutions and settings. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 35.0 FPS, dropping to 36.0 FPS at 4K High. These figures suggest the GPU is the primary constraint at 2160p, as the card’s 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth struggle to handle the high-resolution textures and draw distances typical of flight simulation. The 4K Medium result of 47.3 FPS and 4K Low result of 60.5 FPS indicate that reducing settings can recover playability, but the GPU remains the limiting factor throughout.

The RX 6600 XT’s benchmark scores place it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27985. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (0.9% behind), and the AMD FirePro S7150 (1.5% behind). These tight margins show that the RX 6600 XT performs near the level of a GTX 980 Ti in synthetic tests, but in a modern game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, the architectural advantages of RDNA 2.0—such as hardware ray tracing and improved geometry processing—may not translate directly into higher FPS when VRAM capacity is saturated.

At 1440p, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced. The 1440p Ultra result of 46.1 FPS and 1440p High result of 46.8 FPS are nearly identical, suggesting that the card reaches a compute or memory bandwidth wall that additional settings changes cannot overcome. The 1440p Medium result of 60.4 FPS and 1440p Low result of 81.1 FPS show that the GPU has headroom when the workload is reduced, but the jump from High to Ultra at this resolution is minimal—a sign that the 8 GB frame buffer may be filling up with high-resolution assets.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 102.9, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the i5-14600K compare to its nearest CPU rival in average benchmark score?

A: The i5-14600K trails the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X by 0.2%, but leads the Intel Core i5-14600KF by 0.4% and the AMD EPYC 4345P by 0.9%.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo, and at which settings?

A: The lowest average FPS is 35.0, recorded at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the RX 6600 XT outperform the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 in synthetic benchmarks?

A: No, the RX 6600 XT is 0.9% behind the RTX 3070 in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the CPU and GPU in their respective databases?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600K ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT ranks in the 71st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How much FPS improvement is seen when dropping from Ultra to Low at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS increases from 54.1 at Ultra to 102.9 at Low, a gain of 48.8 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the combo delivers its weakest performance. Ultra settings produce an average of 35.0 FPS, High settings produce 36.0 FPS, Medium settings produce 47.3 FPS, and Low settings produce 60.5 FPS. The spread from Ultra to Low is 25.5 FPS, indicating that settings adjustments at 4K have a significant impact but cannot push the combination past 60 FPS even at the lowest preset.

At 2560x1440, results improve noticeably. Low settings yield 81.1 FPS, Medium yields 60.4 FPS, High yields 46.8 FPS, and Ultra yields 46.1 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 0.7 FPS, which suggests that the GPU reaches a performance plateau as settings approach maximum. The jump from Low to Medium is 20.7 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 13.6 FPS, showing diminishing returns as settings increase.

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its best performance. Low settings produce 102.9 FPS, Medium produces 76.0 FPS, High produces 61.5 FPS, and Ultra produces 54.1 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is consistent, with each step reducing FPS by roughly 15-26 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the only configuration in the dataset that exceeds 100 FPS, and it is followed by 1440p Low at 81.1 FPS, indicating that resolution reduction has a larger effect than settings changes at lower presets.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows a clear pattern of FPS degradation as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, but the magnitude of the drop depends heavily on settings. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 102.9 at 1080p to 81.1 at 1440p (a 21.8 FPS drop) and then to 60.5 at 4K (a further 20.6 FPS drop). This 41.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K indicates that the GPU is the limiting component even at Low settings, as the pixel count quadruples while FPS does not scale proportionally.

At Ultra settings, the resolution scaling is more severe in relative terms. The average FPS drops from 54.1 at 1080p to 46.1 at 1440p (a 8.0 FPS drop) and then to 35.0 at 4K (a further 11.1 FPS drop). The percentage decline from 1080p to 4K is 35.3%, which is similar to the Low settings decline, but the absolute FPS values are much lower. This suggests that the GPU’s compute and memory resources are saturated at Ultra settings across all resolutions, and the extra pixels at 4K simply overwhelm the 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The resolution scaling behavior points to the RX 6600 XT as the primary bottleneck in this pairing. The CPU’s strong single-core performance (4642 in Cinebench R23) and high boost clock (5.30 GHz) allow it to maintain frame delivery at lower resolutions, but the GPU cannot keep pace as resolution increases. The fact that 1440p High (46.8 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (46.1 FPS) are nearly identical, while 1080p High (61.5 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (54.1 FPS) show a larger gap, reinforces this interpretation: at 1440p and above, the GPU hits a hard limit that settings changes cannot overcome.

The combo’s rank of 1225 out of 1795 tested combinations places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, which aligns with the measured FPS results. The CPU’s high percentile (93rd) compared to the GPU’s lower percentile (71st) confirms an imbalance: the i5-14600K has more headroom than the RX 6600 XT can utilize in this game. For users targeting 1080p or 1440p at Medium or High settings, this pairing delivers playable frame rates (76.0 FPS at 1080p Medium, 60.4 FPS at 1440p Medium). However, for 4K or Ultra settings, the GPU becomes the clear limiting factor, and the data shows that the processor is not the constraint in those scenarios.