Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 delivers a highly resolution-dependent experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The recorded data shows a system that can comfortably handle the game at 1080p with medium settings, while 1440p requires dropping to low settings to maintain smooth performance. At 4K, no preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold, making this combo primarily suited for lower resolution displays or users willing to accept reduced visual quality.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are uniformly below the playable threshold. The Low preset produces the highest average at 55 FPS, which is notable because it represents the only 4K setting within striking distance of 60 FPS. The Medium preset averages 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 49, indicating noticeable frame pacing fluctuations. High settings drop to 32 FPS average, while Ultra delivers 30 FPS average. The 4K results show a clear pattern: every step up in visual quality costs roughly 10 to 13 FPS in the averages, with Low to Medium being the largest single step at 13 FPS.

Moving down to 2560x1440, the situation improves substantially. The Low preset achieves 74 FPS average, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with a comfortable margin. Medium settings average 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 and a maximum of 66, showing that the frame rate hovers right at the edge of playability. High settings produce 43 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 41 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 16 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 15 FPS, suggesting that the most significant performance cost occurs when moving from Low to Medium, followed by a smaller but still substantial cost from Medium to High.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the strongest performance for this combo. The Low preset delivers 92 FPS average, which is the highest recorded value across all resolutions and settings. Medium settings average 71 FPS, with a minimum of 61 and a maximum of 82, meaning even the worst-case frame dips remain above the playable threshold. High settings produce 54 FPS average, just below the 60 FPS mark, while Ultra averages 51 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 1080p is notable: Low gains 18 FPS, Medium gains 13 FPS, High gains 11 FPS, and Ultra gains 10 FPS, showing that lower resolutions benefit more from the reduced pixel count at lower presets.

The minimum and maximum FPS values are only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the 61 FPS minimum indicates that even the slowest frames stay playable. At 1440p Medium, the 49 FPS minimum confirms occasional dips below 60, which matches the borderline average. At 4K Medium, the 36 FPS minimum shows significant frame drops, aligning with the overall unplayable nature of 4K on this hardware.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, the verdict data shows no playable settings, meaning no preset achieves the 60 FPS threshold. The closest option is Low at 55 FPS average, but this still falls short of the playable mark by 5 FPS. Users targeting 4K would need to accept sub-60 performance or reduce the resolution.

At 2560x1440, the only playable setting is Low, which delivers 74 FPS average. This represents the best settings per the database, as it is the sole preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. The 74 FPS figure provides a 14 FPS buffer above the playable threshold, offering some headroom for demanding scenes, though the lack of any higher playable preset means visual quality is capped at the Low tier.

For 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Medium, achieving 71 FPS average. Low also qualifies as playable with 92 FPS, but Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, so it is the recommended choice. The 71 FPS average includes a 61 FPS minimum, meaning the worst-case frames remain above the playable threshold, making this the most reliable configuration for smooth gameplay.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: No. The recorded data shows no 4K preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest 4K average is 55 FPS on Low settings, while Ultra drops to 30 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings for 3840x2160.

Q: What is the best 1440p setting for this combo?

A: Low is the only playable option at 2560x1440, delivering 74 FPS average. Medium comes close at 58 FPS but falls below the 60 FPS threshold, and its 49 FPS minimum indicates occasional stutter.

Q: Is 1080p Medium a stable choice?

A: Yes. Medium at 1920x1080 averages 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. All recorded frames stay above the playable threshold, making this the most stable playable configuration.

Q: How much performance is lost going from 1080p to 1440p?

A: The penalty varies by preset. Low loses 18 FPS (92 to 74), Medium loses 13 FPS (71 to 58), High loses 11 FPS (54 to 43), and Ultra loses 10 FPS (51 to 41). The absolute loss is smaller at higher presets, but the percentage loss is larger because the base frame rates are lower.

Q: Does the Ultra preset ever reach 60 FPS?

A: No. Ultra averages 30 FPS at 4K, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 51 FPS at 1080p. Even at the lowest resolution, Ultra remains 9 FPS below the playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest value is 92 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only recorded average above 90 FPS across all tested configurations.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU data, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F ranks in the 77th percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which scores 24964, a delta of only 0.2 percent. The Intel Core i7-11850H sits at 24935 (0.3 percent slower), and the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 (0.4 percent slower). On the other side, the AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, which is 0.4 percent higher. These deltas are all within one percent, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The practical difference between the 8400F and its closest rivals is negligible for this game.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks in the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15290. The nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 with a score of 15283, a delta of 0 percent, indicating essentially identical GPU compute performance. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270 (0.1 percent lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199 (0.6 percent lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171 (0.8 percent lower). These sub-one-percent differences mean that swapping in any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game. The RTX 2060 sits in a tight cluster where no single alternative offers a meaningful performance advantage.

When combined, this CPU and GPU pair would behave similarly to any of these rival combinations. A system with a Ryzen 5 7500F and a GTX 580, for example, would likely produce FPS numbers within one or two frames of the measured values. The same applies to the Intel rivals on the CPU side and the AMD alternatives on the GPU side. Users considering upgrades should note that none of these near-equivalent parts would change the fundamental resolution and settings limitations documented for this game.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions. At 1080p, the system achieves 92 FPS on Low and 71 FPS on Medium, indicating that the GPU has enough headroom to render frames quickly at lower pixel counts. The drop from Low to Medium is 21 FPS, and from Medium to High it is 17 FPS, showing that visual quality settings have a strong impact at this resolution. The CPU, with its 77th percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded scores such as 20851 in Cinebench R23, is likely not the limiting factor at 1080p, as the GPU can push frame rates well above 60 FPS on modest presets.

At 1440p, the frame rates drop across all settings, with Low at 74 FPS, Medium at 58, High at 43, and Ultra at 41. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p costs between 10 and 18 FPS depending on the preset, which points to the GPU becoming more influential as pixel count increases. The RTX 2060, with its 1920 shading units and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, is doing more work per frame, and the gap between Low and Medium widens to 16 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra narrows to 2 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is approaching its limits at higher presets.

At 4K, the situation becomes clearly GPU-bound. The Low preset averages 55 FPS, but every other setting falls below 45 FPS, with Medium at 42, High at 32, and Ultra at 30. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, and between Medium and High it is 10 FPS, indicating that the GPU cannot maintain playable frame rates regardless of CPU performance. The CPU's role diminishes further at 4K, as the rendering load shifts almost entirely to the GPU's 6.451 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The verdict data confirms this pattern: only 1080p and 1440p have any playable settings, and the best settings at each resolution are Low or Medium, never High or Ultra.

The data shows that the CPU is sufficient for this game at all tested resolutions, while the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions and presets. At 1080p, the GPU can still deliver playable frame rates on Medium, but at 1440p only Low works, and at 4K nothing works. The CPU's 12 threads and 16 MB of shared L3 cache are adequate for the simulation workload, as evidenced by the 92 FPS result at 1080p Low, which is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this title.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, it clears the 60 FPS threshold on both Low and Medium settings, with Medium being the recommended choice at 71 FPS average and a 61 FPS minimum. At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve playable performance, delivering 74 FPS average, while Medium falls just short at 58 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the best result being 55 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold.

For users targeting 1080p, this combo is fully capable, provided they stick to Medium settings or lower. The 71 FPS average at Medium gives a comfortable margin, and the 61 FPS minimum ensures that even demanding scenes stay smooth. For 1440p, the system works but requires sacrificing visual quality to Low, which still offers a playable 74 FPS average. For 4K, the system is not suitable, as even the lowest preset fails to hit 60 FPS.

The verdict data lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, one playable setting (Low) for 2560x1440, and two playable settings (Low and Medium) for 1920x1080. This means the system's practical ceiling is 1440p Low or 1080p Medium. Users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate can run higher presets, but they will experience averages in the 40s and 50s, which may be acceptable for a flight simulator where precise timing is less critical than in fast-paced genres.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's ranking of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU and GPU pair sits at rank 2912 out of 3714 total combos. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the ranking, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing limited playability at higher resolutions. The 2912th rank means that roughly 78 percent of tested combos perform better than this system, while about 22 percent perform worse.

The rank reflects the GPU's relatively modest standing, as the RTX 2060 ranks in the 58th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 77th percentile. The combination of a strong CPU and a mid-range GPU produces a system that is CPU-capable but GPU-limited, which is consistent with the resolution-based performance pattern observed in the FPS data. The GPU's 6 GB memory capacity and 192-bit bus also contribute to the lower rank, as Microsoft Flight Simulator benefits from larger memory pools and higher bandwidth at higher resolutions.

Compared to the nearest rival combos, which would include the Ryzen 5 7500F or Intel Core i7-13620H paired with the GTX 580 or RTX 3050 OEM, the performance differences would be minimal given the sub-one-percent deltas in both CPU and GPU benchmark scores. The rank of 2912 is therefore representative of a broad cluster of similar hardware, and users with any of these near-equivalent components would expect nearly identical results in this game. The system is not competitive with higher-tier GPUs, but it remains a functional choice for 1080p and modest 1440p play.