Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Performance
1080p (Full HD)
1440p (2K / QHD)
4K (Ultra HD)
Requirements Check
Recommendations
Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.
Your GPU supports ray tracing.
Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings
| Ultra | High | Medium | Low | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4K Ultra HD | 35 | 37 | 49 | 63 |
| 1440p QHD | 48 | 50 | 66 | 85 |
| 1080p Full HD | 59 | 62 | 82 | 106 |
Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.
Performance Analysis: Microsoft Flight Simulator on Your System
Best Settings per Resolution
At 3840x2160 (4K), the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, delivering an average of 63 FPS. Medium drops to 49 FPS, High to 37 FPS, and Ultra to 35 FPS, so 4K users must accept reduced visual fidelity to maintain smooth playback.
At 2560x1440 (1440p), the best playable preset is Medium with an average of 66 FPS. Low runs at 85 FPS, High at 50 FPS, and Ultra at 48 FPS. Medium is the sweet spot here, balancing visual quality with a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.
At 1920x1080 (1080p), the most demanding preset that clears 60 FPS is High, averaging 62 FPS. Medium runs at 82 FPS, Low at 106 FPS, and Ultra at 59 FPS, just one frame short of the playability threshold. For 1080p users who want maximum fidelity without dropping below 60 FPS, High is the ceiling.
FAQ
Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with high settings?
A: No. At 3840x2160, High settings produce only 37 FPS on average, well below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Only Low settings at 4K reach 63 FPS.
Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming?
A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 yield 66 FPS average, with a minimum of 57 FPS and maximum of 76 FPS. This is the highest preset that maintains an average above 60 FPS.
Q: Is Ultra settings ever playable with this hardware?
A: At 1080p, Ultra averages 59 FPS, just under the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p and 4K, Ultra averages 48 FPS and 35 FPS respectively. No resolution in the recorded data reaches 60 FPS on Ultra.
Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?
A: The Intel Core i5-10400F scores 14185 on average benchmarks, placing it in the 68th percentile among all CPUs. It sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6756E, and 0.5% of the AMD EPYC 7552, making these chips effectively interchangeable in performance.
Q: What GPU alternatives perform similarly?
A: The RTX 5050 averages 21035 points, ranking in the 66th percentile. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is 0.6% slower, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M is 1% slower, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is 1.6% faster, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is 1.6% faster.
Q: Does the combo rank well among tested configurations?
A: This combo ranks 2278 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. It handles 1080p and 1440p well but struggles at 4K beyond Low settings.
Measured FPS Breakdown
3840x2160 (4K):
- Low: average 63 FPS
- Medium: average 49 FPS, minimum 42 FPS, maximum 56 FPS
- High: average 37 FPS
- Ultra: average 35 FPS
2560x1440 (1440p):
- Low: average 85 FPS
- Medium: average 66 FPS, minimum 57 FPS, maximum 76 FPS
- High: average 50 FPS
- Ultra: average 48 FPS
1920x1080 (1080p):
- Low: average 106 FPS
- Medium: average 82 FPS, minimum 70 FPS, maximum 95 FPS
- High: average 62 FPS
- Ultra: average 59 FPS
The data shows a consistent pattern: each step down in resolution grants roughly a 20-25% FPS improvement at the same settings. The gap between Medium and High is larger than between Low and Medium, suggesting the GPU hits a computational ceiling around the High preset. Minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings, where the 1080p minimum of 70 FPS remains safely above the 60 FPS threshold, while the 1440p minimum of 57 FPS dips slightly below it.
The Verdict
This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable range depends heavily on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS on High (62 FPS), Medium (82 FPS), and Low (106 FPS), with Ultra falling just short at 59 FPS. At 2560x1440, Medium (66 FPS) and Low (85 FPS) are playable, while High (50 FPS) and Ultra (48 FPS) are not. At 3840x2160, only Low (63 FPS) reaches the threshold; Medium (49 FPS), High (37 FPS), and Ultra (35 FPS) all fall below.
The verdict by resolution is clear: 1080p users can enjoy High settings with a slim margin, 1440p users should stick to Medium, and 4K users must drop to Low. The minimum FPS data for Medium at both 1440p (57 FPS) and 1080p (70 FPS) indicates that even playable presets can experience brief dips, so users who prioritize consistency may prefer dropping one setting level further. Given the game's simulation nature, where frame timing matters for smooth camera pans and terrain loading, staying above 60 FPS on average is advisable but not always sufficient; the 1440p Medium minimum of 57 FPS suggests occasional stutter may occur.
Similar Performance Alternatives
On the CPU side, the nearest rivals to the Intel Core i5-10400F, based on average benchmark scores, are the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% slower), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% faster), AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% slower), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% faster). All four chips produce effectively identical aggregate performance, meaning any of them would deliver similar frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU. The differences are within measurement noise, so a system builder swapping between these CPUs should see no meaningful change in Flight Simulator performance.
For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (0.6% slower), AMD Radeon HD 8970M (1% slower), AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (1.6% faster), and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (1.6% slower). The RX 5600 XT is the only rival that outperforms the RTX 5050 by a noticeable margin, but even that 1.6% difference translates to roughly one or two frames per second at most settings. The other three rivals are statistically tied with the RTX 5050.
When considering a full system swap, pairing any of these rival CPUs with any of these rival GPUs would produce nearly identical results to the tested configuration. The 68th percentile CPU ranking and 66th percentile GPU ranking indicate balanced performance, though neither component is a standout. Users looking for higher FPS at 4K or Ultra settings would need to move beyond these alternatives to hardware in a higher performance tier.
How This Combo Ranks
This specific combination of Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 ranks 2278 out of 3714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it at roughly the 39th percentile among all tested configurations, meaning about 61% of tested combos perform better in this game.
The ranking reflects the system's mid-tier positioning. It handles 1080p and 1440p competently but cannot manage 4K beyond Low settings, which is typical for hardware in this performance neighborhood. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking and the GPU's 66th percentile ranking are closely aligned, so neither component is dramatically bottlenecking the other. The recorded FPS data shows the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU keeps pace at lower settings.
For perspective, the combo sits below the midpoint of the database, but it is not a weak performer. It delivers playable frame rates at the two most common gaming resolutions, and the 4K Low setting still provides 63 FPS. Users with 1080p or 1440p monitors will find this system adequate for Flight Simulator, though those seeking Ultra settings at any resolution should look at higher-ranked combinations. The rank also implies that many alternative pairings in the database offer similar or better performance, so a buyer comparing options should weigh resolution targets and preset preferences against the measured results here.