Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 lands at rank 1032 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this pairing in the upper third of all recorded configurations, roughly the 72nd percentile of combos tested. For a flight simulator that stresses both CPU physics and GPU rendering simultaneously, this is a strong position, though not a top-tier one.

The CPU itself sits at the 71st percentile among all processors in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17177. Its nearest rivals in aggregate CPU performance include the AMD EPYC 7H12 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (0.6% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-12450H (0.4% behind). The GPU, meanwhile, sits at the 68th percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 23172. Its closest competitors include the NVIDIA P106-100 (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (0.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (0.4% behind). Neither component is an outlier in its class; both are solidly mid-to-upper range parts that combine to produce a balanced system.

The rank of 1032 out of 3714 reflects a combination that handles the game well at most settings, but the data shows clear limits at the highest resolution. This is not a combo that dominates the leaderboard, but it is one that consistently crosses the 60 FPS threshold across most of the tested configurations. The measured results show a system that is capable, with the caveat that the most demanding preset at 4K falls short of the playability threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for loading both the processor and the graphics card heavily, and the recorded data confirms that both components matter, but their relative importance shifts with resolution and preset.

At 1920x1080, the spread between Low and Ultra settings is substantial: 159.4 FPS at Low drops to 88.4 FPS at Ultra, a 44.5% reduction. The jump from Medium (125.3 FPS) to High (94.2 FPS) is a 24.8% drop, while the jump from High to Ultra is only 6.2%. This pattern suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is doing significant work feeding the GPU, and the frame rate scales more with settings changes that affect draw distance and object density than with pure pixel throughput.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low produces 125.3 FPS, Medium 100.1 FPS, High 75.9 FPS, and Ultra 68.2 FPS. The relative drops between consecutive settings are 20.1% (Low to Medium), 24.2% (Medium to High), and 10.1% (High to Ultra). The GPU is now taking on more of the load, as the resolution increase demands more pixel processing, but the CPU still keeps pace well enough that the frame rates remain high across all presets.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. Low produces 94.7 FPS, but Medium drops to 72.6 FPS, High to 53.6 FPS, and Ultra to 51.4 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 23.3%, from Medium to High is 26.2%, and from High to Ultra is only 4.1%. The relatively small difference between High and Ultra at 4K indicates that the GPU is already saturated by the workload at High, and further increases in visual fidelity yield diminishing returns in frame rate. The CPU, while still relevant, has more headroom at 4K; the bottleneck clearly shifts to the graphics card as pixel count rises.

The data indicates that at 1080p and 1440p, this combo is balanced enough that neither component consistently bottlenecks. At 4K, however, the RTX 3080 is the limiting factor, and the i5-11400F has spare capacity. Players who want to push 4K performance would benefit more from a stronger GPU than a stronger CPU, while those at 1080p would see gains from either component depending on the preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured results cover three resolutions and four settings each, with average FPS recorded for every combination. Minimum and maximum FPS values were not captured in the database, so the analysis relies on averages alone.

1920x1080: The best result comes at Low settings with 159.4 FPS average. Medium drops to 125.3 FPS, a 21.4% reduction. High produces 94.2 FPS, a 24.8% further drop. Ultra yields 88.4 FPS, which is 6.2% lower than High. Every preset at 1080p clears the 60 FPS threshold by a wide margin, with even the most demanding setting sitting 47.3% above the playability line.

2560x1440: Low settings deliver 125.3 FPS, matching the 1080p Medium result exactly. Medium produces 100.1 FPS, a 20.1% drop. High comes in at 75.9 FPS, a 24.2% reduction from Medium. Ultra manages 68.2 FPS, which is 10.1% below High. All four presets remain above 60 FPS, with Ultra clearing the threshold by 13.7%. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is nearly linear for Low settings: 159.4 FPS drops to 125.3 FPS, a 21.4% decrease, while Ultra drops from 88.4 FPS to 68.2 FPS, a 22.9% decrease.

3840x2160: Low settings achieve 94.7 FPS average. Medium drops to 72.6 FPS, a 23.3% reduction. High falls to 53.6 FPS, a 26.2% drop that puts it below the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra bottoms out at 51.4 FPS, only 4.1% lower than High. At 4K, only Low and Medium remain playable, and the gap between Medium and High represents the point where the GPU can no longer maintain fluid frame rates.

The resolution scaling shows a consistent pattern: moving from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 21-23% of frame rate across all presets, while moving from 1440p to 4K costs between 24.4% (Low: 125.3 to 94.7) and 24.6% (Ultra: 68.2 to 51.4). This consistency suggests the workload scales predictably with pixel count, and the system does not hit any unexpected cliffs until the 4K High preset.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the answer depends heavily on resolution and preset selection.

At 1920x1080, the verdict is unambiguous: every preset, from Low to Ultra, clears 60 FPS. The best playable setting is Ultra at 88.4 FPS average, which provides the full visual experience while maintaining 47.3% headroom above the playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, all four presets also clear 60 FPS. Ultra runs at 68.2 FPS average, which is above the threshold but with less margin than at 1080p. The verdict is fully playable at every setting, with the best preset being Ultra at 68.2 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the verdict is mixed. Low (94.7 FPS) and Medium (72.6 FPS) are playable, but High (53.6 FPS) and Ultra (51.4 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS line. The best playable setting is Medium at 72.6 FPS, which still offers respectable visual quality while maintaining a smooth frame rate. Players who want to run High or Ultra at 4K would need to accept frame rates in the low 50s, which may be tolerable for a flight simulator but does not meet the defined playability standard.

The overall assessment is that this combo is a strong performer at 1080p and 1440p, fully capable of maxing out settings, while at 4K it is limited to Medium settings for a guaranteed 60 FPS experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177. The nearest rivals in aggregate performance are the AMD EPYC 7H12 with a score of 17120 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U with 17074 (0.6% lower), the Intel Core i5-12450H with 17239 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G with 17278 (0.6% higher). In practice, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU, as the performance deltas are all within 1% of each other. The i5-12450H and Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G are marginally faster, while the EPYC 7H12 and Core Ultra 7 164U are marginally slower, but none of these differences would be perceptible in gameplay.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23172. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P106-100 with 23249 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 with 23250 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M with 23273 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X with 23276 (0.4% higher). These deltas are all sub-1%, meaning any of these graphics cards would deliver essentially the same frame rates in this game. The practical takeaway is that the RTX 3080 sits in a tightly clustered performance band, and swapping to any of these near-equivalents would not meaningfully change the playability verdict at any resolution.

When considering a full combo swap, a system with any of these rival CPUs paired with any of these rival GPUs would land within a few percentage points of the measured results. The rank of 1032 out of 3714 would shift only slightly, and the verdicts by resolution would remain identical: fully playable at 1080p and 1440p on all presets, playable at 4K only on Low and Medium.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains 60 FPS is Ultra, which runs at 88.4 FPS average. This delivers the maximum visual fidelity the game offers while keeping a comfortable margin above the playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best setting is also Ultra, with an average of 68.2 FPS. This clears 60 FPS by 13.7%, providing the full visual experience at a smooth frame rate. The margin is thinner than at 1080p, but still acceptable.

At 3840x2160, Ultra and High both fall below 60 FPS, so the best playable preset is Medium at 72.6 FPS average. This setting provides a 21% margin above the threshold and represents the optimal balance between visual quality and performance at 4K. Players who prioritize frame rate over fidelity could also consider Low at 94.7 FPS, but Medium offers substantially better visuals for only a 23.3% frame rate cost.

In summary, the recommended configurations are: 1080p Ultra at 88.4 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 68.2 FPS, and 4K Medium at 72.6 FPS. These settings maximize visual quality while ensuring the game remains above the 60 FPS playability standard.