Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this combination of Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D shows a consistent pattern of high frame rates across all tested settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest preset (“Low”) delivers an average of 134 FPS, while “High” averages 110 FPS, “Medium” averages 123 FPS with a minimum of 104 FPS and maximum of 141 FPS, and “Ultra” averages 109 FPS. The narrow spread between presets at this resolution, from 109 to 134 FPS, suggests the game is not heavily constrained by the graphics card at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages shift downward but remain robust. “Low” produces 125 FPS average, “High” drops to 103 FPS, “Medium” averages 114 FPS with a minimum of 97 FPS and a maximum of 131 FPS, and “Ultra” lands at 101 FPS. The difference between “Ultra” and “Low” at 1440p is 24 FPS, which is a meaningful gap but still leaves every preset well above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

At 3840x2160, the resolution scaling becomes more apparent. “Low” averages 113 FPS, “Medium” averages 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS and a maximum of 119 FPS, “High” averages 88 FPS, and “Ultra” averages 84 FPS. The step from “Medium” to “High” at 4K costs 15 FPS on average, while moving from “High” to “Ultra” costs only 4 FPS. Interestingly, the minimum FPS recorded at 4K “Medium” (88 FPS) is still higher than the average FPS at 4K “Ultra” (84 FPS), indicating that the frame time distribution tightens as the preset becomes more demanding.

The data shows a clear pattern: at every resolution, the “Ultra” preset stays above 80 FPS on average, and no recorded average falls below 84 FPS even at the most demanding settings. The minimum FPS figures that were captured, which appear only for the “Medium” preset at each resolution, are 104 FPS at 1080p, 97 FPS at 1440p, and 88 FPS at 4K. These minimums are all comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold, suggesting that even transient dips do not approach the playability limit.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals which component dominates performance in this title. At 1920x1080, the difference between “Low” (134 FPS) and “Ultra” (109 FPS) is only 25 FPS, while at 3840x2160, the same preset swing produces a 29 FPS difference (113 to 84 FPS). This relatively modest expansion of the preset gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is not the sole bottleneck even at 4K; the CPU continues to contribute meaningfully to frame rate limits.

However, the resolution scaling itself tells a more nuanced story. From 1080p “Ultra” (109 FPS) to 1440p “Ultra” (101 FPS) is an 8 FPS drop, and from 1440p “Ultra” to 4K “Ultra” (84 FPS) is a 17 FPS drop. The larger penalty when moving from 1440p to 4K suggests that the RTX 5090 D begins to feel the pixel-count pressure at higher resolutions, but the i5-10400F still keeps the frame rate from collapsing. In contrast, the “Low” preset drops from 134 FPS at 1080p to 125 FPS at 1440p (9 FPS) and then to 113 FPS at 4K (12 FPS), a more linear scaling pattern.

The measured data implies that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a title where both components are active. At lower resolutions and lower presets, the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads (with a 4.30 GHz boost clock) are likely the limiting factor, since the frame rates do not scale dramatically with GPU load. At 4K with “Ultra” settings, the GPU’s 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth become more relevant, but the 84 FPS average still indicates headroom. The fact that “High” at 4K (88 FPS) is only 4 FPS behind “Ultra” (84 FPS) suggests diminishing returns from the most demanding settings, which points to the CPU’s role in maintaining a floor on performance.

Benchmark results also show the CPU’s general capability: its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 10283, single-core is 1451, and it sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, meanwhile, reaches the 92nd percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 77712. This combination of a mid-range CPU and a top-tier GPU produces a system where the CPU is more likely to be the constraining factor in CPU-bound scenes, but the GPU’s immense headroom ensures that visual settings can be maximized without dropping below playable rates.

FAQ

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at 4K with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The recorded average FPS at 3840x2160 with “Ultra” settings is 84 FPS, which is 24 FPS above the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p according to the data?

A: The “Ultra” preset at 2560x1440 averages 101 FPS, making it the most demanding setting that stays above 60 FPS. It also has the highest average among all presets at that resolution.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 “Medium,” the average is 123 FPS with a minimum of 104 FPS. At 3840x2160 “Medium,” the average is 103 FPS with a minimum of 88 FPS. This represents a 20 FPS average drop.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more at 1080p?

A: The data shows only a 25 FPS gap between “Low” (134 FPS) and “Ultra” (109 FPS) at 1080p, suggesting the CPU is a significant contributor to the frame rate ceiling, as the GPU is capable of much higher output at lower resolutions.

Q: Are there any recorded minimum FPS values below 60 FPS?

A: No. The lowest recorded minimum is 88 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 with “Medium” settings. All other presets either have no recorded minimum or have minimums above 97 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combination ranks 569th out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the top 15% of the database for this game.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-10400F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Xeon 6756E (0.2% faster), Intel Core 7 160UL (0.3% slower), AMD EPYC 7552 (0.5% faster), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.6% slower). These CPUs sit within a very narrow performance band around the i5-10400F’s average score of 14185, meaning that swapping to any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Xeon 6756E and EPYC 7552 are server-class parts, but their benchmark proximity suggests they would not change the frame rate characteristics of this system in a measurable way.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT (1.1% faster), AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (1.6% slower), NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (2.1% slower), and NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (2.4% slower). The RTX 5090 D has an average benchmark score of 77712, and these alternatives are all within 2.4% of that figure. In practical terms, a system with any of these GPUs paired with the i5-10400F would deliver nearly the same FPS in this game, with differences of only a few frames per second at most. The RX 6650M XT being slightly faster in average benchmark score is notable, but the recorded FPS data for this specific GPU and CPU combination shows ample headroom at all resolutions.

The implication of these rival comparisons is that the i5-10400F is not a unique bottleneck; several other CPUs with similar aggregate scores would behave the same way. Likewise, the RTX 5090 D’s nearest rivals, despite being in different product families (mobile GPUs and data center accelerators), offer comparable compute performance, meaning the measured FPS values here are representative of a broader class of hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database’s rankings for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific combination of i5-10400F and RTX 5090 D holds position 569 out of 3714 tested combos. This places the system in the upper tier of configurations, with approximately 85% of tested combinations ranking below it. Given that the CPU is at the 68th percentile among all CPUs and the GPU is at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, the combo’s rank of 569 is somewhat lower than what the GPU alone might suggest, which reinforces the idea that the CPU is the limiting partner in this pairing.

The rank also reflects that the game’s performance is not purely GPU-bound. If the GPU were the sole determinant, a top-decile GPU like the RTX 5090 D would likely push the combo higher in the rankings. Instead, the i5-10400F’s mid-range standing pulls the combined result down. Still, a rank of 569 out of 3714 means this system outperforms the vast majority of tested configurations, and the measured FPS values confirm that it delivers playable performance at every preset and resolution tested.

The Verdict

The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS or higher at every tested resolution and preset. At 3840x2160, all four presets (“High,” “Low,” “Medium,” “Ultra”) are listed as playable, with the best settings being “Ultra” at an average of 84 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same is true: all presets are playable, and “Ultra” averages 101 FPS. At 1920x1080, all presets are again playable, with “Ultra” averaging 109 FPS.

The data shows no configuration where the average FPS falls below 84, and the lowest recorded minimum is 88 FPS at 4K “Medium.” This means the system clears the 60 FPS threshold with a margin of at least 28 FPS in the worst-case average scenario and 28 FPS above the minimum threshold in the worst-case transient dip. Even at the most demanding settings, the game remains fluid, and there is no evidence of stutter or frame drops approaching the playability limit.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is “Ultra,” which achieves an average of 84 FPS. This is the highest visual quality available in the test data, and it still leaves 24 FPS of headroom above the playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is also “Ultra,” with an average of 101 FPS. The gap between this and the 4K result is 17 FPS, showing that the lower pixel count allows for more comfortable performance at maximum settings.

At 1920x1080, “Ultra” again qualifies as the best settings choice, averaging 109 FPS. The progression from 84 FPS at 4K to 101 FPS at 1440p to 109 FPS at 1080p indicates that users can run the game at maximum quality at any resolution, with the frame rate improving as resolution decreases. The recorded data supports “Ultra” as the recommended preset at all three resolutions, as it never drops below the 60 FPS playability threshold and provides the highest visual fidelity available in the measurements.