Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the recorded data identifies a clear playability threshold of 60 FPS. At each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above this threshold is as follows.

At 1920x1080, the highest playable preset is Medium, delivering an average of 73.5 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold, leaving headroom for occasional dips without falling below playability. Low settings at this resolution yield 95.3 FPS, but Medium is the better choice since it maintains fluid performance while increasing visual fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the highest playable preset is also Medium, but with a much tighter margin. The average FPS at Medium is 61.9, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by only 1.9 frames. This is a viable setting for 1440p gaming, though the slim margin means that demanding scenes or dense scenery could push the frame rate below the threshold. Low settings at this resolution produce 78.4 FPS, offering a safer alternative if stability is prioritized over visual quality.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves an average of 60 FPS. The closest is Low, which averages 57.6 FPS, just 2.4 frames shy of the threshold. Medium averages 44.3 FPS, High averages 33.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.8 FPS. For 4K resolution, the data indicates that this hardware combination cannot sustain a playable experience at any settings level, and users should consider lowering the resolution to 1440p or below for acceptable performance.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results reveal how the CPU and GPU each influence performance across resolutions and presets. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for its complex simulation logic, and the data here shows that the CPU has a substantial role, particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU is less burdened.

At 1920x1080, the scaling from Low to Ultra shows a wide spread: 95.3 FPS at Low, 73.5 FPS at Medium, 59.0 FPS at High, and 52.2 FPS at Ultra. The drop from Low to Ultra is 43.1 FPS, a reduction of approximately 45%. This large gap indicates that the GPU is heavily taxed by higher presets even at 1080p, since the simulation workload remains constant while the rendering load increases. However, the CPU still matters: the Intel Core i5-10400F has a percentile rank of 68 among all CPUs, and its multi-threaded scores (for example, Cinebench R23 multi-core at 10283) suggest it can feed the GPU adequately at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the same preset ladder shows 78.4 FPS at Low, 61.9 FPS at Medium, 43.2 FPS at High, and 45.8 FPS at Ultra. The difference between Low and Ultra is 32.6 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra (45.8 FPS) is slightly higher than High (43.2 FPS), which is an anomaly in the data but suggests that certain Ultra settings may shift workload distribution in a way that benefits this specific hardware. The overall reduction in FPS compared to 1080p indicates that the GPU is now the primary bottleneck, as the pixel count increases by 78% from 1080p to 1440p, and the average FPS at each preset drops accordingly.

At 3840x2160, the performance collapses further: 57.6 FPS at Low, 44.3 FPS at Medium, 33.7 FPS at High, and 33.8 FPS at Ultra. The 4K resolution quadruples the pixel count of 1080p, and the GPU (Intel Arc B580) becomes the dominant constraint. The CPU's role diminishes because the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to be limited by the processor. The Arc B580 has a percentile rank of 68 among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 23021, which places it in the mid-range tier. The data shows that at 4K, even Low settings barely miss the 60 FPS target, confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor.

The scaling between resolutions tells the story: at 1080p, the CPU still has influence, as evidenced by the fact that Low settings exceed 90 FPS, which requires the processor to handle the simulation and draw calls quickly. At 1440p, the GPU starts to dominate, and at 4K, it is almost entirely GPU-bound. Users with this combination should expect that lowering resolution has a larger impact than tweaking presets, since the GPU is the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table summarizes all recorded average FPS values for this CPU and GPU combination. No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded in the data, so only averages are reported.

1920x1080:

• Low: 95.3 FPS
• Medium: 73.5 FPS
• High: 59.0 FPS
• Ultra: 52.2 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 78.4 FPS
• Medium: 61.9 FPS
• High: 43.2 FPS
• Ultra: 45.8 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 57.6 FPS
• Medium: 44.3 FPS
• High: 33.7 FPS
• Ultra: 33.8 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step up in resolution reduces FPS at every preset. The most significant drop occurs from 1080p to 1440p at High settings, where FPS falls from 59.0 to 43.2, a 26.8% reduction. From 1440p to 4K at Medium, FPS falls from 61.9 to 44.3, a 28.4% reduction. These figures align with the GPU's pixel throughput limits.

At 1080p, the spread between Low and Ultra is 43.1 FPS, indicating that the preset choice has a major impact. At 1440p, the spread is 32.6 FPS, and at 4K, the spread is 23.8 FPS. The narrowing spread at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, so raising the preset has diminishing returns on visual quality relative to the FPS cost.

The anomaly at 1440p Ultra (45.8 FPS) versus 1440p High (43.2 FPS) deserves mention. This inversion is unusual but may reflect specific rendering paths in the game engine that interact with the Arc B580's architecture. Users should not rely on this anomaly; treating High as the ceiling for 1440p is the safer interpretation.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The answer depends on the resolution and the user's tolerance for settings adjustments.

At 1920x1080, the combination of Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 is fully capable of running the game. Medium settings deliver 73.5 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with a 13.5 FPS margin. Low settings at 95.3 FPS provide an even larger cushion, and even High settings (59.0 FPS) are close enough that minor tweaks could push them above 60. The database verdict confirms that Low and Medium are playable at this resolution, with Medium being the best settings choice.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable but with less headroom. Medium settings average 61.9 FPS, which just clears the threshold. Low settings at 78.4 FPS are a more comfortable option for users who prioritize smoothness over visuals. High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS and are not recommended for a consistent experience. The verdict lists Low and Medium as playable, with Medium as the best settings option.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot run the game at a playable frame rate. No preset reaches 60 FPS; the best is Low at 57.6 FPS, which is 2.4 FPS short. The verdict for 4K lists no playable settings, meaning users should avoid this resolution for Microsoft Flight Simulator on this hardware. The overall combo rank of 2812 out of 3714 combinations indicates that this setup sits in the lower half of tested configurations for this game, reinforcing that 4K is out of reach.

For a smooth experience, the data recommends 1080p Medium as the sweet spot, with 1440p Medium as a viable but tighter option. Users who want to play at 4K would need a more powerful GPU.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for how other hardware might behave in this game.

For the Intel Core i5-10400F, the closest alternatives by average benchmark score are the Intel Xeon 6756E (average score 14163, a 0.2% difference), the Intel Core 7 160UL (average score 14232, a -0.3% difference), the AMD EPYC 7552 (average score 14115, a 0.5% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (average score 14277, a -0.6% difference). These CPUs all have average scores within 1% of the i5-10400F's average benchmark score of 14185. In practice, any of these processors paired with the Arc B580 would likely produce similar FPS results in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 1080p, however, the i5-10400F's single-thread score (PassMark single thread at 2541) and multi-thread score (PassMark multi-thread at 12115) suggest it handles the simulation load adequately, and the rivals with comparable scores should behave similarly.

For the Intel Arc B580, the nearest GPU rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (average score 23061, a -0.2% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (average score 22895, a 0.6% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (average score 23172, a -0.7% difference), and the NVIDIA P106-100 (average score 23249, a -1% difference). The Arc B580's average benchmark score is 23021. These GPUs are all within 1% of the Arc B580's score, meaning they would likely deliver nearly identical frame rates in this game. Notably, the RTX 3080 is a much higher-tier card in other contexts, but its average benchmark score here is close to the Arc B580, suggesting that for this specific workload, the performance envelope is similar. Users with any of these GPUs paired with a comparable CPU should expect similar FPS figures to those reported for the Arc B580.

One caveat: the nearest rival scores are aggregate benchmarks, not game-specific measurements. The actual FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator could vary due to driver optimizations, but the close score deltas (all under 1%) indicate that the hardware is in the same performance class.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, Medium settings average 73.5 FPS, and Low settings average 95.3 FPS. Both exceed the 60 FPS threshold. High settings average 59.0 FPS, which is just below the threshold, so Medium is the recommended highest preset.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 average 61.9 FPS, which is the highest preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings average 78.4 FPS for a more stable experience. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS, at 43.2 and 45.8 FPS respectively.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 57.6 at Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 44.3 FPS, High averages 33.7 FPS, and Ultra averages 33.8 FPS. No preset is playable at 4K according to the data.

Q: How much does the GPU matter compared to the CPU for this game?

A: The GPU becomes the dominant factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU still has influence, as shown by the 95.3 FPS at Low settings. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as FPS drops significantly with each resolution increase. The CPU, Intel Core i5-10400F, has a percentile rank of 68 and is adequate for feeding the GPU at 1080p.

Q: What GPU would perform similarly to the Intel Arc B580?

A: The nearest rivals by average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (within 0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (within 0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (within 0.7%), and NVIDIA P106-100 (within 1%). These GPUs should deliver similar FPS in this game, though game-specific drivers may cause minor variations.

Q: What CPU would perform similarly to the Intel Core i5-10400F?

A: The closest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E (within 0.2%), Intel Core 7 160UL (within 0.3%), AMD EPYC 7552 (within 0.5%), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (within 0.6%). These CPUs have average benchmark scores within 1% of the i5-10400F, so paired with the Arc B580, they would produce nearly identical results in this game.