Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 delivers a remarkably consistent experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, clearing the 60 FPS playable threshold at every tested setting and resolution combination. The data shows this is a combination with headroom to spare, particularly at lower resolutions where frame rates approach or exceed 190 FPS. The analysis below breaks down how this pairing behaves, where its strengths and potential bottlenecks lie, and what settings produce the best experience at each resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F sits in a tightly packed performance cluster. Its average benchmark score of 25005 is nearly indistinguishable from its nearest rivals: the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24964 (just 0.2% slower), the Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935 (0.3% slower), and the Intel Core i7-13620H scores 24911 (0.4% slower). On the other side, the AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25103, which is 0.4% faster than the 8400F. In practical terms, swapping between any of these CPUs would yield virtually identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the differences are well within margin of error for real-world gameplay. The 8400F’s 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 architecture with a 4.70 GHz boost clock places it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly three-quarters of tested processors, but it is not a top-tier part.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080’s nearest rivals are a mix of AMD parts. The AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757 (0.6% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698 (0.7% slower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828 (2.3% slower). The RTX 5080 itself scores 56083, placing it in the 87th percentile globally. Interestingly, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE is 2.2% faster with a score of 57367. This means that while the RTX 5080 is a high-end card, it is not at the absolute top of the stack; users looking for slightly more GPU headroom could consider that RX 9070 GRE, though the performance difference would be barely perceptible in this simulator. The RTX 5080’s 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus with 960.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for the game’s demands at all tested resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for being demanding on both components, but the data here shows a clear pattern of GPU scaling that intensifies with resolution. At 1920x1080, the RTX 5080 is not the limiting factor; the average frame rates across settings range from 122.4 FPS at Ultra to 193.2 FPS at Low. The delta between Low and Ultra is 70.8 FPS, indicating that the GPU has plenty of headroom and the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting at this resolution. The Ryzen 5 8400F’s single-thread score of 951 in 3DMark and 2943 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can feed frames quickly enough, but the massive FPS spread at 1080p is driven by GPU load differences as settings change.

At 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take a larger role. The average frame rates range from 96.7 FPS at Ultra to 179.7 FPS at Low, a spread of 83 FPS. Compared to 1080p, every settings tier drops by roughly 25-30 FPS (e.g., Ultra goes from 122.4 to 96.7, a 21% reduction). This scaling is consistent with a GPU that is becoming more saturated as pixel count increases, but the CPU still has enough throughput to avoid becoming a hard bottleneck.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant factor. The frame rates compress to a range of 73.6 FPS at Ultra to 128.8 FPS at Low, a spread of 55.2 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is steep: Ultra falls from 96.7 to 73.6 FPS (a 24% reduction), and Low falls from 179.7 to 128.8 FPS (a 28% reduction). This is a textbook sign of GPU-bound performance. The RTX 5080’s 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is being fully utilized at 4K, while the CPU’s role diminishes. Notably, at 4K the difference between High (73.8 FPS) and Ultra (73.6 FPS) is negligible, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional visual effects are not adding meaningful GPU stress at this resolution, or that the CPU is providing just enough data to keep the GPU busy.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the clear choice. The average frame rate of 122.4 FPS is more than double the 60 FPS playable threshold, and there is no reason to sacrifice visual quality. The High preset (130.2 FPS) and Medium preset (176.1 FPS) offer marginal gains, but the extra fidelity from Ultra is worth the small FPS cost.

At 2560x1440, Ultra remains the best option with an average of 96.7 FPS. This is comfortably above 60 FPS, leaving room for dips in dense scenery or weather effects. The High preset at 104.2 FPS provides a small buffer, but the 7.5 FPS difference between High and Ultra is small enough that most users will prefer the higher visual detail.

At 3840x2160, the choice is less obvious. Ultra runs at 73.6 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold but with less margin for error. High runs at 73.8 FPS, essentially identical. The data suggests that the Ultra preset is not meaningfully more demanding than High at this resolution, so there is no reason to drop below Ultra. However, users who prioritize frame rate stability over absolute visual fidelity could consider Medium at 99.8 FPS, which provides a substantial 35% FPS increase over Ultra while still looking good on a 4K display. The verdict data lists all four settings as playable, but Ultra at 73.6 FPS is the recommended maximum for those wanting the best visuals without falling below the threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with max settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with the Ultra preset, the average frame rate is 73.6 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings produce nearly identical performance at 73.8 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game?

A: It depends on resolution. At 1920x1080, the CPU plays a larger role, as evidenced by the 70.8 FPS spread between Low and Ultra settings. At 3840x2160, the GPU dominates, with the frame rate dropping by 24-28% from 1440p to 4K across all settings.

Q: How much performance do I lose by going from 1080p to 1440p or 4K?

A: At Ultra settings, dropping from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 costs about 25.7 FPS (from 122.4 to 96.7). Dropping from 1440p to 4K costs another 23.1 FPS (from 96.7 to 73.6). The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 48.8 FPS, or about 40%.

Q: What is the least demanding setting to play at if I need maximum frame rates?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate is 193.2 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, it is 179.7 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it is 128.8 FPS. These are the highest frame rates available at each resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + RTX 5080 combination ranks 192nd out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 5% of all systems.

Q: Is there a settings preset that provides a big FPS boost without a major visual drop at 4K?

A: Yes, switching from Ultra (73.6 FPS) to Medium (99.8 FPS) at 3840x2160 provides a 35.6% FPS increase. This may be worthwhile for users who want extra headroom in busy scenarios, though Ultra is still playable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the performance is consistently high across all presets. Low settings deliver an average of 193.2 FPS, Medium at 176.1 FPS, High at 130.2 FPS, and Ultra at 122.4 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 70.8 FPS, showing that the GPU load scales significantly with visual quality. The difference between High and Ultra is smaller (7.8 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additions are relatively light on the GPU.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain strong. Low averages 179.7 FPS, Medium 139.8 FPS, High 104.2 FPS, and Ultra 96.7 FPS. The drop from 1080p is consistent at roughly 20-30 FPS per settings tier. The spread between Low and Ultra is 83 FPS, which is actually wider than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is doing more work per pixel at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance compresses as the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck. Low averages 128.8 FPS, Medium 99.8 FPS, High 73.8 FPS, and Ultra 73.6 FPS. Notably, High and Ultra are essentially identical in performance, differing by only 0.2 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 55.2 FPS, narrower than at lower resolutions, which is typical for GPU-bound scenarios where even Low settings require substantial pixel throughput. All 12 measured data points show average FPS above the 60 FPS threshold, with no min or max FPS data available in the pack.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 achieves a rank of 192 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 94.8th percentile, meaning it outperforms nearly 95% of all systems tested in this game. The rank reflects the balance between the CPU’s 77th percentile standing and the GPU’s 87th percentile standing, with the GPU being the stronger component. Given that the game becomes increasingly GPU-bound at higher resolutions, the RTX 5080’s strength is well-matched to the 8400F’s adequate single-thread performance.

That said, the rank also highlights that there is room for improvement. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Ryzen 5 7500F or Intel Core i7-13620H, would perform nearly identically, so upgrading the CPU alone would not meaningfully change the rank. Conversely, upgrading the GPU to something like the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (which is 2.2% faster in synthetic benchmarks) could push the combo slightly higher, but the in-game impact would likely be minimal given that the 8400F is not the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The data suggests this is a well-balanced pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator, offering Ultra-quality gameplay at all resolutions with no need for compromise.