Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded data shows a clear progression across presets. Low settings deliver an average of 105 FPS. Medium settings drop to 81 FPS on average, with a minimum of 69 FPS and a maximum of 94 FPS. High settings average 61 FPS, while Ultra falls to 58 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 47 FPS, which is substantial for a flight simulator where terrain and weather detail scale heavily with resolution.

At 2560x1440, the numbers climb noticeably. Low averages 125 FPS. Medium reaches 110 FPS average, with a minimum of 94 FPS and a maximum of 127 FPS. High averages 83 FPS, and Ultra sits at 79 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 46 FPS, nearly identical to the 4K spread, but every preset lands comfortably above the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the GPU has the least pressure, and the CPU becomes more relevant. Low averages 134 FPS. Medium averages 123 FPS, with a minimum of 104 FPS and a maximum of 141 FPS. High averages 103 FPS, and Ultra averages 98 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 36 FPS, which is narrower than at higher resolutions, indicating that the processor is starting to limit gains from lower graphics settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of 61 FPS. Ultra dips to 58 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. Medium also clears the bar at 81 FPS, but High offers better visual quality while still staying above 60.

For 2560x1440, Ultra is the best choice, averaging 79 FPS. Every preset clears the threshold here, so the recommendation is to run the game at its highest visual quality. The recorded data shows no reason to drop below Ultra unless the user wants additional headroom for cloud rendering or heavy third-party scenery.

For 1920x1080, Ultra is also the best setting, averaging 98 FPS. This gives the user a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, which is useful for simulation games that can have sudden FPS drops near complex airports or during weather transitions. The minimum recorded at Medium is 104 FPS, so even the lowest frame times at this resolution are well above the threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear split in workload scaling. At 3840x2160, the GPU is the dominant factor. Dropping from High to Low increases FPS from 61 to 105, a 72% improvement. The CPU has less impact because the render resolution is high enough that the RTX 5070 is the bottleneck. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 58 FPS, which indicates the GPU is saturated before the CPU becomes a limiting factor.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The FPS difference between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS (125 down to 79), but the drop from Medium to High is 27 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is only 4 FPS. This suggests that at 1440p, the GPU still has the primary role, but the CPU starts to matter more at the lower presets where the GPU can render frames faster than the processor can feed it.

At 1920x1080, the CPU becomes more significant. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 36 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra is only 5 FPS. The recorded data shows that the i5-10400F with only 6 cores and 12 threads is not enough to fully drive the RTX 5070 at lower resolutions. The GPU is capable of well over 134 FPS, but the CPU cannot keep up with the frame generation demands of the game at that resolution. This is a classic simulation scenario where single-thread performance matters, and the CPU's 3dmark single thread score of 688 and passmark single thread score of 2541 are below what the GPU can extract.

In summary, the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K, the CPU and GPU are roughly balanced at 1440p, and the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p for frame generation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a few percentage points of performance. The Intel Xeon 6756E has an average score of 14,163, which is 0.2% lower than the i5-10400F's average of 14,185. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14,115, which is 0.5% lower. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14,232, 0.3% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14,277, 0.6% higher. Any of these chips would behave nearly identically to the i5-10400F in this game, meaning the same CPU-limited frame rates at 1080p. The Ryzen 3 7320C is a notable alternative because it offers similar multi-threaded performance despite being a lower-tier product, which suggests that this game cares less about core count and more about single-thread speed and cache.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are all within 2% of the RTX 5070's average score of 40,377. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 40,318, which is 0.1% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40,063, 0.8% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 40,870, 1.2% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile scores 39,568, 2% lower. These are all professional or mobile GPUs, but the benchmark data indicates that their raw performance in this game would be very similar. The RTX A500 Mobile would deliver almost the same FPS at every resolution and preset, which is relevant for users who need a mobile workstation for simming on the go.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level, but the experience depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 3840x2160, the playable settings are High, Low, and Medium. High averages 61 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra is not playable, averaging 58 FPS. For a flight simulator, where smoothness is critical for landing and instrument reading, a 58 FPS average is too marginal, and the user should stick with High.

At 2560x1440, all four settings are playable. Low averages 125, Medium 110, High 83, and Ultra 79. The best setting is Ultra at 79 FPS, which gives a comfortable margin. This is the sweet spot for this combo, as the GPU has enough headroom to run the highest preset while the CPU still keeps up.

At 1920x1080, all settings are playable, and the best is Ultra at 98 FPS. Even the minimum frame at Medium (104 FPS) is far above the threshold. The only caveat is that the CPU will prevent the GPU from reaching its full potential, but the user will not notice any stutter or slowdown because the average is so high.

The verdict is that this combo is fully playable at 1080p and 1440p with any preset, and at 4K with any preset except Ultra. For high-refresh monitors at 1080p, the 98 FPS at Ultra is smooth. For 4K users, sacrificing Ultra for High is a small visual penalty for a 3 FPS gain over the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 827 out of 3,714 tested combinations in this game. That places it in the top 22% of all tested hardware pairings in the database. This is a strong result for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. The rank reflects that the bottleneck at 1080p prevents the RTX 5070 from being fully utilized, but the overall performance is still high due to the GPU's raw power.

The percentile for the CPU is 68, meaning it is above 68% of all CPUs in the database. The GPU percentile is 82, above 82% of all GPUs. The combo rank is lower than the GPU percentile would suggest because the CPU is the weaker link. If the same GPU were paired with a stronger CPU, the rank would likely be higher, but as a standalone pairing, this is a respectable result.

In practical terms, this rank means that the combo will be competitive with most gaming PCs for this title, but it will be outclassed by systems with a newer generation CPU. For a simulation that is known to be CPU-bound in densely populated areas, the 827 rank is a reminder that the i5-10400F is holding the RTX 5070 back. A more powerful CPU could push the 4K UItra average above 60 FPS, but for this exact combo, High is the ceiling at 4K.