Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, but not at every resolution. At 1920x1080, Low and Medium presets clear 60 FPS, with Medium averaging 70.3 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset reaches 75.6 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; the best result is Low at 52.9 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1920x1080?

A: The Medium preset is the most demanding setting that stays at or above 60 FPS, averaging 70.3 FPS. The High preset drops to 55.7 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: Is the RTX 2060 more of a bottleneck than the i5-11400F in this game?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. Scaling from Low to Ultra at 3840x2160 drops average FPS from 52.9 to 32.4, a 20.5 FPS reduction. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads handle the simulator's workload, but the GPU's 6 GB GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth struggle with the higher-resolution rendering loads.

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

A: It ranks 2865 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the lower percentile of systems tested. This reflects that while the hardware is capable at lower settings, it cannot push high or ultra presets to playable levels at any resolution above 1080p.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Medium settings at 2560x1440?

A: The Low preset averages 75.6 FPS, while Medium drops to 58.7 FPS, a 16.9 FPS difference. This makes Medium unplayable at 1440p, as it falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the RTX 2060 have any performance rivals in the database?

A: The closest GPU rivals by average score are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 at 15283 (0% difference), the AMD Radeon 680M at 15270 (0.1% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 (0.6% difference). These are within 0.8% of the RTX 2060's average score of 15290.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear pattern: the RTX 2060 becomes the dominant factor as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 38.7 FPS range (91.8 to 53.1 FPS), indicating the GPU can still push decent frame rates at lower settings. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, provide adequate processing for the simulator's flight dynamics and world generation at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU's limitations become more apparent. The Low preset averages 75.6 FPS, but Medium drops to 58.7 FPS and High falls to 43.8 FPS. This 31.8 FPS spread between Low and High shows how quickly the RTX 2060's 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs saturate as pixel count rises. The 6 GB memory buffer also becomes a constraint, as the simulator's detailed terrain textures require substantial VRAM.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unequivocally the bottleneck. Even the Low preset only manages 52.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 32.4 FPS. The 4K resolution quadruples the pixel workload compared to 1080p, and the RTX 2060's 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth cannot feed the rendering pipeline fast enough. The CPU's performance remains consistent across resolutions, as evidenced by the relatively stable frame rate drops when transitioning from 1440p to 4K at the same settings.

The preset scaling also tells a story. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Medium is 21.5 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 14.6 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns as settings increase, with the GPU struggling to maintain the higher visual fidelity. At 2560x1440, the Low-to-Medium gap is 16.9 FPS, and the Medium-to-High gap is 14.9 FPS, showing similar scaling behavior.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination ranks 2865 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 23% of systems tested, meaning roughly three-quarters of tested configurations outperform it in this specific title.

Several factors contribute to this ranking. The CPU sits at the 71st percentile among all processors tested, with an average benchmark score of 17177. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7H12 at 17120 (0.3% difference), the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239 (-0.4% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17278 (-0.6% difference). This shows the i5-11400F is a mid-range performer, competitive with several other mainstream chips.

The GPU, however, falls to the 58th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 15290. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 580 at 15283 (0% difference), the Radeon 680M at 15270 (0.1% difference), and the RTX 3050 OEM at 15199 (0.6% difference). This lower percentile ranking drags the overall combo down, especially in a game that heavily stresses GPU resources at higher resolutions.

The ranking also reflects the game's demanding nature. Microsoft Flight Simulator, released in 2020, requires substantial GPU resources for its volumetric clouds, detailed terrain, and complex lighting. The RTX 2060's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus width, while adequate for many titles, prove insufficient for this simulator at high settings. The combo's rank of 2865 out of 3714 indicates that while it can run the game, it does so with significant compromises in visual quality or resolution.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with important caveats. At 1920x1080, the system delivers playable performance on Low and Medium presets, with Medium averaging 70.3 FPS and Low averaging 91.8 FPS. The High preset drops to 55.7 FPS and Ultra to 53.1 FPS, both falling short of the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, only the Low preset remains playable, averaging 75.6 FPS. Medium falls to 58.7 FPS, High to 43.8 FPS, and Ultra to 39.5 FPS. The system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any setting above Low at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches playable performance. The best result is Low at 52.9 FPS, followed by Medium at 40.8 FPS, High at 33.8 FPS, and Ultra at 32.4 FPS. Users seeking 4K playability would need a significantly more powerful GPU.

The verdict is clear: this combination works best at 1080p with Medium settings, where it provides a smooth experience with room to spare. At 1440p, users must accept Low settings for smooth gameplay. At 4K, the system is not viable for this simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 52.9 FPS average
• Medium: 40.8 FPS average
• High: 33.8 FPS average
• Ultra: 32.4 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 75.6 FPS average
• Medium: 58.7 FPS average
• High: 43.8 FPS average
• Ultra: 39.5 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 91.8 FPS average
• Medium: 70.3 FPS average
• High: 55.7 FPS average
• Ultra: 53.1 FPS average

The data shows a consistent pattern across resolutions: Low always provides the highest frame rate, with Ultra providing the lowest. The largest gap between settings occurs at 1080p, where Low outperforms Ultra by 38.7 FPS. At 4K, the gap narrows to 20.5 FPS, indicating that the GPU is already saturated even at Low settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

3840x2160: No setting achieves 60 FPS. The highest average is Low at 52.9 FPS, which falls 7.1 FPS short of the playable threshold. Users at this resolution must accept sub-60 FPS performance or lower the resolution.

2560x1440: The Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 75.6 FPS. This provides 15.6 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium at 58.7 FPS is close but misses the mark.

1920x1080: The Medium preset is the best playable option, averaging 70.3 FPS. This offers 10.3 FPS of headroom. Low averages 91.8 FPS, providing a smoother experience but with reduced visual quality. High and Ultra both fall below the threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

CPU Alternatives: The Intel Core i5-11400F's nearest rivals in the database are closely matched. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, just 0.3% below the i5-11400F's 17177 average. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4% higher. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6% higher, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, 0.6% lower. Any of these processors would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

GPU Alternatives: The RTX 2060's nearest rivals are equally tight. The GeForce GTX 580 matches at 15283, a 0% difference. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, 0.1% lower. The RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, 0.6% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, 0.8% lower. These GPUs would produce very similar frame rates in this simulator, meaning users with any of these cards can expect comparable performance characteristics.

For users considering an upgrade or a build with similar hardware, the data suggests that swapping the i5-11400F for any of its listed rivals would change performance by less than 1%. Similarly, swapping the RTX 2060 for its nearest rivals would also yield sub-1% differences in GPU benchmark scores. The practical impact on Microsoft Flight Simulator frame rates would be negligible, with all configurations likely landing within a few FPS of the measured results.

The combination of a mid-range 6-core CPU with a mainstream 6 GB GPU defines the performance envelope. Users seeking higher settings or resolutions would need to move to a significantly more powerful GPU, as the CPU has more headroom than the GPU based on their respective percentile rankings (71st vs 58th).