Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this Intel Core i5-14600KF and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT combination reveals a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 102.3 FPS, which drops to 79.0 FPS at 1440p Low — a 22% reduction. Moving to 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 58.7 FPS, another 26% cut from the 1440p figure. This pattern is not uniform across settings, which is telling.

At High settings, the descent is similarly stark: 57.3 FPS at 1080p, 47.5 FPS at 1440p, and 34.5 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 4K at High is roughly 40% lost performance. For Ultra, the numbers compress further: 54.9 FPS at 1080p, 45.6 FPS at 1440p, and 31.0 FPS at 4K. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases, suggesting that at 4K the GPU is saturated regardless of quality preset.

The data implies the RX 6600 XT is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to push frame rates past 100 FPS on Low, but the GPU cannot sustain that throughput when pixel count quadruples. The 4K Ultra result of 31.0 FPS is below the 34.5 FPS High result, showing that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors. The 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB VRAM appear insufficient for 4K Ultra in a sim that streams terrain data aggressively.

Interestingly, the 1080p Ultra score of 54.9 FPS is only slightly below the 1440p High score of 47.5 FPS. This crossover suggests that the GPU's compute units — 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs — are doing heavy lifting, but the 128-bit memory bus becomes a constraint once texture loads increase. The scaling pattern indicates that this combo is best suited to 1080p or 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for Low or Medium presets at best.

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

The Intel Core i5-14600KF brings 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. This is a Raptor Lake-R architecture part on a 10 nm process, and its benchmark scores are strong: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32889 and a single-core score of 4643. In Geekbench, it posts 15636 multi-core and 2778 single-core. These numbers place the CPU in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is evident from the 1080p Low result of 102.3 FPS. Flight simulators are known for heavy single-threaded physics and scenery processing, but this CPU's single-core performance — a Passmark single-thread score of 4273 — is sufficient to avoid becoming the primary limiter at low settings. The jump from 1080p Low to 1080p Medium (77.9 FPS) and High (57.3 FPS) shows that the GPU is taking over the workload as settings increase.

The nearest rival data for this CPU shows it trading blows with the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.4% ahead), AMD EPYC 4345P (0.5% behind), and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (0.6% ahead). The margin is negligible, meaning the 14600KF's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support are adequate for this game's streaming demands. The 125 W TDP suggests thermal headroom is not a concern for sustained loads.

Notably, the CPU's multi-core advantage does not translate into higher frame rates at 4K. The 4K Ultra result of 31.0 FPS is identical in bottleneck behavior to the 4K High result of 34.5 FPS, which indicates the CPU is waiting on the GPU. The data shows this CPU is never the limiting factor above 1080p Medium, as the frame rate drops are proportional to GPU load increases.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is a RDNA 2.0 part with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 2589 MHz, with a game clock of 2359 MHz and base of 1968 MHz. The GPU has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 32 ray accelerators. It posts a Passmark G3D score of 16461 and sits in the 71st percentile against all GPUs.

The VRAM capacity is the most telling specification for this game. Microsoft Flight Simulator loads large textures for terrain and aircraft, and the 8 GB frame buffer appears to be a constraint at 4K. The 4K Medium result of 47.0 FPS versus 4K Low at 58.7 FPS shows a 20% drop, but the 4K Ultra at 31.0 FPS is a further 34% reduction. This nonlinear scaling is characteristic of VRAM pressure, where the GPU must swap data in and out of the 8 GB pool.

The GPU's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.1% behind), AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.4% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (0.9% behind). The RTX 3070 comparison is notable: the RX 6600 XT is only 0.9% slower in average benchmark score, yet the RTX 3070 typically has more VRAM bandwidth. This suggests the RX 6600 XT's 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 performance is competitive, but the 128-bit bus limits memory-bound scenarios.

At 1440p, the GPU shows more headroom. The 1440p High result of 47.5 FPS is 17% below the 4K Low result of 58.7 FPS, which seems counterintuitive until you consider that Low settings reduce texture detail, easing VRAM pressure. The 1080p Ultra result of 54.9 FPS demonstrates that at lower resolutions, the GPU's compute power is sufficient for high quality, but the 4K Ultra figure of 31.0 FPS is below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay, confirming the GPU's limits.

FAQ

Q: Why does the 4K Low FPS (58.7) exceed the 1440p High FPS (47.5)?

A: Low settings reduce texture and shading complexity, which lowers the GPU's memory bandwidth demand. At 4K Low, the RX 6600 XT's 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient, whereas 1440p High increases per-pixel workload, pushing the GPU closer to its compute limit.

Q: Is this CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 1080p Ultra?

A: The 1080p Ultra result of 54.9 FPS is only 4% below the 1080p High result of 57.3 FPS, indicating the GPU is the primary limiter. The CPU's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4643 and Passmark single-thread score of 4273 are high enough to avoid bottlenecking at these frame rates.

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

A: Only at Low settings, where it achieves 79.0 FPS. At Medium, it drops to 61.0 FPS, and at High it falls to 47.5 FPS. The 1440p Ultra result of 45.6 FPS is well below 60 FPS, so a 60 FPS target requires Low or Medium presets.

Q: What does the combo rank of 1326 out of 1795 indicate?

A: This combo ranks in the 26th percentile among tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. It places below the median, which aligns with the GPU's 71st percentile overall but reflects the game's demanding nature and the GPU's 8 GB VRAM limitation at high settings.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to the RTX 3070 in this context?

A: The RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score (27985) is 0.9% lower than the RTX 3070's (28238). In this game, the RX 6600 XT's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are likely the differentiators, but the specific FPS data for the RTX 3070 is not provided for direct comparison.

Q: Is the CPU's 14-core configuration beneficial for this game?

A: The 14 cores and 20 threads provide strong multi-core throughput (Cinebench R23 multi-core: 32889), but flight simulators often rely on single-core performance. The 5.30 GHz boost clock helps, yet the FPS scaling suggests the GPU is the bottleneck above 1080p Medium, so the CPU's core count is not the limiting factor.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are 102.3 for Low, 77.9 for Medium, 57.3 for High, and 54.9 for Ultra. The gap between Medium and High is 26% (77.9 to 57.3), while High to Ultra narrows to 4% (57.3 to 54.9). This suggests diminishing returns from High to Ultra, with the GPU's shading units and ROPs saturating.

At 2560x1440, the FPS values are 79.0 for Low, 61.0 for Medium, 47.5 for High, and 45.6 for Ultra. The Low to Medium drop is 23% (79.0 to 61.0), Medium to High is 22% (61.0 to 47.5), and High to Ultra is 4% (47.5 to 45.6). The consistent 22-23% drops between Low and High indicate linear scaling, but the small High-to-Ultra delta again points to GPU limits.

At 3840x2160, the FPS values are 58.7 for Low, 47.0 for Medium, 34.5 for High, and 31.0 for Ultra. The Low to Medium drop is 20% (58.7 to 47.0), Medium to High is 27% (47.0 to 34.5), and High to Ultra is 10% (34.5 to 31.0). The larger Medium-to-High drop at 4K compared to 1080p suggests that VRAM capacity (8 GB) becomes a critical factor as texture sizes increase.

Across all resolutions, the Low settings provide the only playable frame rates at 4K (58.7 FPS), while 1440p Medium (61.0 FPS) and 1080p High (57.3 FPS) offer similar performance levels. The 1080p Ultra result of 54.9 FPS is nearly identical to the 4K Low result, highlighting that the GPU's compute power is consistent but memory bandwidth is the differentiator.

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

For a target of 60 FPS, the data shows only two viable options: 1080p Low at 102.3 FPS and 1440p Low at 79.0 FPS. The 1080p Medium result of 77.9 FPS is also above 60, but 1440p Medium at 61.0 FPS barely crosses the threshold. For players prioritizing smoothness over visuals, 1440p Medium offers the best balance, as it provides a 60+ FPS experience with moderate quality improvements over Low.

If 30 FPS is the minimum acceptable, the options expand. At 4K, Medium (47.0 FPS) and High (34.5 FPS) are playable, while Ultra (31.0 FPS) is borderline. The 1440p Ultra result of 45.6 FPS is smoother than 4K High, suggesting that dropping resolution rather than settings yields better frame pacing. The 1080p Ultra result of 54.9 FPS is the highest quality preset that maintains near-60 FPS, making it the best choice for visual fidelity at a playable frame rate.

The data suggests avoiding 4K Ultra entirely, as the 31.0 FPS result is below the 30 FPS threshold for comfortable flight simulation. The 8 GB VRAM is the likely culprit, as the game's texture streaming at Ultra exceeds the available frame buffer. For a consistent experience, 1440p High (47.5 FPS) is a safer bet than 4K Medium (47.0 FPS), as the former uses less pixel fill rate and may produce more stable frame times.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT ranks 1326 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 26% of all tested systems, which is surprising given the CPU's 93rd percentile overall ranking and the GPU's 71st percentile. The discrepancy highlights how game-specific performance diverges from synthetic benchmarks.

The CPU's nearest rivals — the i5-14600K, EPYC 4345P, and Ryzen 9 5950X — have nearly identical average scores (within 0.6%), so the CPU is not the differentiator. The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 3070, scores only 0.9% higher on average, yet the combo's in-game rank is low because Microsoft Flight Simulator demands more than raw compute. The game's reliance on large texture sets and continuous world streaming stresses the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus of the RX 6600 XT.

The rank implies that most tested combos achieve higher FPS in this game, likely due to GPUs with larger memory buses or more VRAM. The combo's 1080p Low result of 102.3 FPS is respectable, but many systems likely push past 144 FPS at that setting, given the game's popularity among high-end hardware. The 4K results, which fall below 60 FPS even at Low, are the primary drag on the ranking.

For context, the combo's 1326th place means it outperforms only 469 combos, which is a small fraction. This is a case where the CPU's strong single-core performance (Cinebench R23 single-core: 4643) cannot compensate for the GPU's memory limitations. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a higher-bandwidth GPU would yield a significantly better in-game rank, as the CPU's benchmark scores are not the bottleneck.