Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 presents an interesting combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a CPU that ranks in the 68th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits in the 87th percentile among all graphics cards. This pairing delivers playable frame rates across every tested resolution and preset, with the strongest performance appearing at lower resolutions where the GPU can stretch its legs.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest preset this combo can run at 4K?

A: The recorded data shows that the Ultra preset at 3840x2160 delivers an average of 71.2 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. High, Medium, and Low presets also remain above 60 FPS at this resolution, with averages of 73.4, 101.2, and 110.4 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the RTX 5080 compare to its nearest rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 56083. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE scores 57367, which is 2.2% higher. The AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757 (0.6% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698 (0.7% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828 (2.3% lower).

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU at 1080p?

A: The data indicates that at 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 109 on Ultra to 132 on Low. This is a smaller spread than at 4K, which suggests the CPU is limiting performance at lower resolutions, as the GPU has less pixel work to do.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance score?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F scores 688 in the 3dmark single-thread test and 1451 in the Cinebench R23 single-core test. These scores place the CPU in the 68th percentile versus all CPUs.

Q: Which rival CPU has nearly the same average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E has an average score of 14163, which is 0.2% higher than the Core i5-10400F's average of 14185. The AMD EPYC 7552 is 0.5% higher with a score of 14115.

Q: Is the 60 FPS threshold met at all resolutions with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The verdict data lists Ultra as a playable setting at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The average FPS at Ultra is 71.2 at 4K, 96.7 at 1440p, and 109 at 1080p.

CPU and GPU Roles

The balance between the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 shifts significantly as resolution changes. At 1920x1080, the data shows a narrow performance band: Low settings hit 132 FPS, Medium 121.3, High 110.3, and Ultra 109. The difference between Low and Ultra is only 23 FPS, which indicates that the CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is holding back the GPU at this resolution. The RTX 5080 is capable of far more pixel throughput than the processor can feed at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the spread widens. Low settings deliver 122.5 FPS, Medium 114.8, High 103.1, and Ultra 96.7. The gap between Low and Ultra grows to 25.8 FPS. This still shows CPU influence, but the GPU begins to take on more of the workload as the pixel count rises. The average FPS drops by roughly 8 to 10 percent from 1080p to 1440p across most presets, which is a modest decline given the higher resolution.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor. Low settings produce 110.4 FPS, Medium 101.2, High 73.4, and Ultra 71.2. The difference between Low and Ultra expands to 39.2 FPS, far larger than at 1080p. This pattern confirms that the RTX 5080's compute and memory bandwidth, 960.0 GB/s across a 256-bit bus, are the primary drivers of performance at 4K. The CPU's role diminishes because the GPU is now the limiting resource for each frame.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is steep. For example, High settings drop from 103.1 FPS at 1440p to 73.4 FPS at 4K, a 28.8% reduction. Ultra drops from 96.7 to 71.2, a 26.4% reduction. These numbers highlight how the rasterization load at 4K taxes the GPU far more than the CPU. In short, the i5-10400F constrains performance at 1080p and partially at 1440p, but the RTX 5080 is the clear bottleneck at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are close in average score. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, just 0.2% lower than the Core i5-10400F's 14185. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, which is 0.5% lower. On the other side, the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, 0.3% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6% higher. A system built with any of these processors would likely show very similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the benchmark deltas are within a fraction of a percent.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE is the closest higher performer with a score of 57367, 2.2% above the RTX 5080's 56083. The AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757, 0.6% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, 0.7% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X trails by 2.3% with a score of 54828. These alternatives would produce near-identical FPS results in this game, with the RX 9070 GRE potentially offering a slight edge.

The combination of a 68th percentile CPU with an 87th percentile GPU means that swapping the i5-10400F for one of its rivals would not change the playable verdict. Similarly, substituting the RTX 5080 with any of its nearby rivals would keep all resolutions and presets above the 60 FPS threshold, based on the measured deltas.

The Verdict

This PC can absolutely run Microsoft Flight Simulator. The database verdict lists every tested setting as playable at all three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the best playable setting is Ultra with an average of 71.2 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra delivers 96.7 FPS. At 1920x1080, Ultra reaches 109 FPS. In every case, the average frame rate exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold by a comfortable margin.

The weakest recorded performance is the 4K Ultra result of 71.2 FPS, which still leaves 11.2 FPS of headroom above the threshold. The strongest recorded performance is 1080p Low at 132 FPS. No configuration in the measured data falls below 60 FPS. The only limitation is that the CPU, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10283, may prevent the GPU from reaching even higher frame rates at 1080p, but this does not affect playability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low 132 FPS, Medium 121.3 FPS, High 110.3 FPS, and Ultra 109 FPS. The minimum and maximum values are not recorded in the data, so only averages are available for analysis. The drop from Low to Ultra is 23 FPS, a 17.4% reduction.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 122.5 FPS, Medium 114.8 FPS, High 103.1 FPS, and Ultra 96.7 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 25.8 FPS. Compared to 1080p, each preset loses between 9.5 FPS (Low) and 12.3 FPS (Ultra), which is a moderate reduction consistent with the higher pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 110.4 FPS, Medium 101.2 FPS, High 73.4 FPS, and Ultra 71.2 FPS. The jump from Medium to High is the largest single-step drop in the entire dataset, falling from 101.2 to 73.4 FPS, a 27.8 FPS reduction. This indicates that the High preset introduces a major increase in rendering cost at 4K. Ultra only drops another 2.2 FPS from High, showing diminishing returns in cost between those two presets at this resolution.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the most demanding option that stays above 60 FPS, with an average of 109 FPS. This is the best visual quality available in the data, and it clears the threshold by 49 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Ultra again provides the highest quality while maintaining 96.7 FPS on average. This leaves 36.7 FPS of headroom above the playable threshold, making it a safe choice for consistent performance.

At 3840x2160, Ultra remains the best setting, achieving 71.2 FPS. While this is the lowest average in the dataset, it still exceeds 60 FPS by 11.2 FPS. The data shows that all four presets at 4K are playable, but Ultra offers the maximum fidelity without crossing below the threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 ranks 641st out of 3714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the top 17.3% of all configurations recorded for this game. The rank reflects the strong GPU performance, which is in the 87th percentile, partially offset by the CPU's 68th percentile standing.

Given that the GPU is the primary driver at 4K and a major factor at 1440p, the rank is likely higher than what the CPU alone would achieve. Systems with a more powerful processor, such as those in the top percentiles, would rank higher, but the recorded data confirms that this specific combo delivers smooth performance across all tested settings and resolutions. The 641st position out of 3714 indicates a solid, above-average configuration for this flight simulator.