Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160 (4K), the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Low, which delivers an average of 79.7 FPS. Medium settings at this resolution fall just short of the playability threshold at 59.9 FPS, while High (44.3 FPS) and Ultra (43.1 FPS) are clearly below the 60 FPS target. For a smooth 4K experience, the data indicates Low is the only viable option, though it provides substantial headroom above the threshold.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), High settings achieve an average of 60.7 FPS, making it the highest preset that clears the 60 FPS bar. Medium runs at 87 FPS and Low at 109.7 FPS, both comfortably playable, but Ultra drops to 57.7 FPS, missing the threshold by a narrow margin. The choice here is clear: High is the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, with only 0.7 FPS of headroom above the target.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), Ultra settings reach an average of 78.9 FPS, which is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS. High runs at 81.7 FPS, Medium at 104.1 FPS, and Low at 136.2 FPS, all well above the threshold. This resolution offers the most flexibility, allowing the full Ultra preset while still maintaining nearly 19 FPS of margin above the playability line.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling across resolutions and presets. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings shows a consistent drop: High falls from 81.7 FPS to 60.7 FPS, a 25.7% reduction; Medium drops from 104.1 to 87, a 16.4% reduction; Low goes from 136.2 to 109.7, a 19.4% reduction; and Ultra decreases from 78.9 to 57.7, a 26.9% reduction. This steep falloff with resolution indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is the primary constraint, as the CPU workload does not scale with pixel count.

The jump from 1440p to 4K is even more pronounced. High settings plummet from 60.7 FPS to 44.3 FPS, a 27% loss; Medium drops from 87 to 59.9 FPS, a 31.1% loss; and Low falls from 109.7 to 79.7 FPS, a 27.3% loss. Ultra sees a similar reduction, from 57.7 to 43.1 FPS, a 25.3% decline. These consistent double-digit percentage drops across every preset confirm that the RTX 3070's rendering throughput is the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

The Intel Core i5-11400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, provides sufficient processing power at all tested settings. Evidence for this lies in the fact that at 1080p, even the heaviest Ultra preset achieves 78.9 FPS, while the lightest Low preset reaches 136.2 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the gap between presets would be smaller, as the GPU would be underutilized. Instead, the data shows a 72.6% increase from Ultra to Low, indicating the GPU is doing the heavy lifting and the CPU keeps pace without throttling frame rates.

At 1440p, the CPU role becomes even less prominent. The spread between Low (109.7 FPS) and Ultra (57.7 FPS) is 52 FPS, and the ratio between presets mirrors the 1080p pattern. At 4K, the spread narrows to 36.6 FPS between Low (79.7) and Ultra (43.1), further evidence that the GPU workload dominates and the processor's headroom is ample. The conclusion is straightforward: the RTX 3070 dictates performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the i5-11400F is not a limiting factor at any tested resolution or preset.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database provide a reference for similar processing capability. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120 in the aggregate benchmark, just 0.3% lower than the i5-11400F's 17177 average. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, 0.6% lower. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning any of these processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same RTX 3070. The practical difference is imperceptible, as the game's frame pacing is governed by the GPU at these settings.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are similarly close. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 17083, 0.7% higher than the RTX 3070's 17208. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 17037, 1% lower, and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M scores 17019, 1.1% lower. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17468, 1.5% higher. These sub-2% deltas suggest that swapping the RTX 3070 for any of these alternatives would result in frame rate changes of less than a frame per second in the measured scenarios. For example, at 1440p High, the 60.7 FPS average would shift by roughly 0.4 to 0.9 FPS depending on the rival, which is well within run-to-run variance.

The combination of the i5-11400F with any of its CPU rivals and the RTX 3070 with any of its GPU rivals would produce essentially identical performance profiles in this game. The data does not support any meaningful differentiation among these alternatives, as all deltas are below 1.5% on both components.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at all three tested resolutions, but the playable settings vary by resolution. At 3840x2160, only Low settings clear the 60 FPS threshold, achieving 79.7 FPS on average. Medium at 59.9 FPS misses the target by just 0.1 FPS, so while it is technically below the threshold, the margin is negligible for practical purposes. High and Ultra are not recommended at 4K, with averages of 44.3 and 43.1 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, High settings are playable at 60.7 FPS, and Medium and Low are well above the threshold at 87 and 109.7 FPS respectively. Ultra falls just short at 57.7 FPS, a 2.3 FPS deficit from the 60 FPS line. For most users, the High preset at 1440p offers the best experience, as it combines solid visual quality with a confirmed playable frame rate.

At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, including Ultra at 78.9 FPS. This is the only resolution where the full Ultra experience is viable, and the margin above 60 FPS is substantial. The verdict is clear: at 1080p, this combination delivers a fully playable experience at maximum settings; at 1440p, High is the ceiling; at 4K, Low is the only option that comfortably exceeds the threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with High settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average frame rate is 44.3 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Low settings at 4K achieve 79.7 FPS, making it the only playable preset at that resolution.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p for this combination?

A: High settings at 2560x1440 deliver 60.7 FPS on average, which is the highest preset that stays above 60 FPS. Ultra at 1440p falls to 57.7 FPS, just below the threshold.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the primary constraint. Frame rates drop by 16.4% to 31.1% when moving from 1440p to 4K at the same settings, which is a classic GPU-bound pattern. The CPU shows no signs of limiting performance, as even at 1080p Low, the frame rate reaches 136.2 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 1620 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the upper half of all configurations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What settings should I use at 1080p?

A: Ultra settings are playable at 1080p with an average of 78.9 FPS. All lower presets also exceed 60 FPS, with Medium at 104.1 FPS and Low at 136.2 FPS.

Q: Does the RTX 3070 have any close performance equivalents?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT scores 0.7% higher in aggregate benchmarks, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 scores 1% lower. These would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all 3714 tested combinations in the database, the Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 ranks 1620th for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the configuration in the 56th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 44% of combinations perform worse and 56% perform better. The ranking reflects the GPU's mid-to-high tier position, as the RTX 3070 sits in the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 71st percentile among all processors.

The gap between the component percentiles and the combo rank suggests that the game's heavy GPU dependency limits the overall standing. A system with a stronger GPU but weaker CPU could potentially rank higher, while a system with a stronger CPU but the same GPU would likely remain in a similar position. The 1620th rank is not a poor result; it indicates a capable pairing that handles the game well at 1080p and 1440p, with 4K requiring reduced settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K)

| Settings | Avg FPS |

|----------|---------|

| Low | 79.7 |

| Medium | 59.9 |

| High | 44.3 |

| Ultra | 43.1 |

At 4K, the frame rate drops sharply as settings increase. Low provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, while Medium sits essentially at the threshold. High and Ultra are both below 45 FPS, making them unsuitable for smooth play.

2560x1440 (1440p)

| Settings | Avg FPS |

|----------|---------|

| Low | 109.7 |

| Medium | 87.0 |

| High | 60.7 |

| Ultra | 57.7 |

The 1440p results show a wide range. Low and Medium are far above the threshold, High barely clears it, and Ultra misses by 2.3 FPS. The step from Medium to High is a 30.2% reduction, indicating a significant rendering cost for the higher quality settings.

1920x1080 (1080p)

| Settings | Avg FPS |

|----------|---------|

| Low | 136.2 |

| Medium | 104.1 |

| High | 81.7 |

| Ultra | 78.9 |

At 1080p, every preset is playable. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2.8 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds minimal overhead over High at this resolution. Low reaches 136.2 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS threshold, highlighting the GPU's headroom at lower resolutions. The data shows no min or max frame values recorded, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates.