Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The recorded data places the Intel Core i5-10400F in the 68th percentile of all CPUs tested in the database, with an average benchmark score of 14,185. The nearest competing processors in the database cluster tightly around this figure. The Intel Xeon 6756E posts an average score of 14,163, which is a mere 0.2% lower than the i5-10400F. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14,232, sitting 0.3% higher. The AMD EPYC 7552 reaches 14,115, a 0.5% deficit, while the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C hits 14,277, a 0.6% advantage. In practical terms, any of these four alternatives would deliver nearly indistinguishable CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The differences are within the margin of measurement noise, so users upgrading from one to another should not expect a meaningful frame rate shift.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 also occupies the 68th percentile among GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23,172. Its nearest rivals in the database are surprisingly diverse in origin. The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23,249, a 0.3% difference. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 23,250, also 0.3% off. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M posts 23,273, a 0.4% gap, and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X reaches 23,276, again 0.4% away. These four GPUs would produce virtually identical graphics throughput in this title. The implication is that the RTX 3080 is not uniquely positioned; several other cards in the database sit within a fraction of a percent of its aggregate performance. For a user building a system around this game, swapping among these five GPUs would not materially alter the experience.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator exhibits a clear pattern where the GPU dominates performance scaling across resolutions, while the CPU provides the baseline. Examining the measured frames per second at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination reaches 132.8 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Low, the average drops to 121.8 FPS, a reduction of 8.3%. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 90.2 FPS, a 25.9% drop from the 1440p figure. This steep decline at 4K indicates that pixel throughput is the limiting factor, which is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing preset scaling at a fixed resolution. At 1920x1080, the gap between Low and Ultra is 47.5 FPS (132.8 down to 85.3). At 2560x1440, the same preset swing spans 53.6 FPS (121.8 down to 68.2). At 3840x2160, the swing is 36.9 FPS (90.2 down to 53.3). The fact that the preset delta remains substantial at all resolutions suggests both components contribute, but the GPU is the primary driver of the resolution penalty.

The data shows that at 4K, even the Medium preset only achieves 71.5 FPS, while High drops to 55.3 FPS and Ultra falls to 53.3 FPS. At 1440p and 1080p, all presets clear 60 FPS, indicating that the CPU has ample headroom to feed the GPU at lower pixel counts. The i5-10400F with 6 cores and 12 threads, boosting to 4.30 GHz, appears sufficient to keep the RTX 3080 busy below 4K. The GPU becomes the decisive component at 3840x2160, where the rendering load overwhelms the card's 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 8704 shading units.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 at position 1,189 out of 3,714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in roughly the top 32% of all system configurations in the database. The rank reflects the aggregate performance across all measured resolutions and presets, weighting the GPU-heavy nature of this title.

Given that both components sit at the 68th percentile individually, a combined rank of 1,189 out of 3,714 is consistent with expectations. The CPU is not a bottleneck at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 85.3 FPS at 1080p Ultra. The GPU does constrain the 4K experience, but the overall rank benefits from the strong 1440p and 1080p results. A higher-ranked combo would likely pair a more powerful GPU with a similar or stronger CPU, but this configuration holds its own across the majority of tested scenarios.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playability depends heavily on resolution and settings. The database sets the playable threshold at 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, all four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable, with the Ultra preset delivering 85.3 FPS. At 2560x1440, all four presets also clear 60 FPS, with Ultra at 68.2 FPS. At 3840x2160, only the Low and Medium presets are playable, delivering 90.2 FPS and 71.5 FPS respectively. The High preset at 4K falls to 55.3 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53.3 FPS, both below the threshold.

The best settings per resolution are Medium at 4K (71.5 FPS), Ultra at 1440p (68.2 FPS), and Ultra at 1080p (85.3 FPS). Users aiming for a locked 60 FPS experience should select these presets. The system is clearly capable of running the game smoothly at standard monitor resolutions, but 4K users must compromise on visual quality.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements cover three resolutions and four preset levels, with average FPS values reported for each configuration. Minimum and maximum frame data are not available in the database, so the analysis relies on averages.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 90.2 FPS. Medium falls to 71.5 FPS. High reaches 55.3 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 53.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 36.9 FPS, which is the largest absolute spread across all resolutions. Interestingly, the difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 2.0 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest quality tier.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 121.8 FPS. Medium reaches 99.6 FPS. High hits 75.5 FPS, and Ultra manages 68.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 53.6 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is 7.3 FPS, a more meaningful gain than at 4K. This resolution offers the best balance of visual fidelity and frame rate, with Ultra still comfortably above 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 132.8 FPS. Medium reaches 122.4 FPS. High delivers 93.2 FPS, and Ultra holds 85.3 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 47.5 FPS. Notably, the step from Medium to High is 29.2 FPS, the largest single-preset drop in the entire dataset. This suggests that the High preset introduces a significant rendering cost, likely from increased draw distances and shadow complexity.

Comparing the same preset across resolutions reveals the GPU scaling. At Low, the 1080p to 1440p drop is 11.0 FPS, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 31.6 FPS. At Ultra, the 1080p to 1440p drop is 17.1 FPS, and the 1440p to 4K drop is 14.9 FPS. The 4K penalty is most severe at Low settings, indicating that raw pixel fill rate is the dominant constraint. At Ultra, the additional shader work partially masks the resolution penalty.

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 53.3, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The High preset at 4K also misses the mark at 55.3 FPS. Only Low and Medium presets are playable at 4K.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: At 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, the system delivers 68.2 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold while providing the highest visual quality among playable configurations. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 85.3 FPS, offering more headroom but lower resolution.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings?

A: At 1920x1080 High, the average FPS is 93.2. At 2560x1440 High, the average drops to 75.5. This represents a loss of 17.7 FPS, or approximately 19% of the 1080p performance.

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

A: The GPU is the primary factor at higher resolutions. The 4K Low preset (90.2 FPS) drops to 53.3 FPS at Ultra, a 36.9 FPS swing caused by GPU load. At 1080p, all presets exceed 85 FPS, indicating the CPU provides sufficient throughput for the graphics card.

Q: Does the system maintain 60 FPS at 4K with Medium settings?

A: Yes. The measured average at 3840x2160 Medium is 71.5 FPS, which is 11.5 FPS above the playable threshold. This is the recommended 4K configuration for a smooth experience.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 1,189 out of 3,714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the upper third of all configurations in the database.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 71.5 FPS. The High preset at 55.3 FPS and Ultra at 53.3 FPS both fail the threshold. Users at 4K should select Medium for the best balance of visual quality and smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset achieves 68.2 FPS, which is the highest visual quality available while still clearing 60 FPS. All four presets are playable at this resolution, but Ultra provides the maximum fidelity without compromising the frame rate.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 85.3 FPS. This is the most demanding preset and it remains well above the 60 FPS threshold. The system has substantial headroom at 1080p, so users can enable all visual features without concern.

The data indicates a clear hierarchy: 1080p Ultra is the flagship configuration, 1440p Ultra is the balanced choice, and 4K Medium is the compromise for high-resolution displays. The 4K High and Ultra presets remain below 60 FPS, so they should be avoided unless the user accepts a sub-60 experience.