Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 represents a stark combination of a mid-range 11th Gen desktop processor and the flagship Ada Lovelace GPU. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the recorded data shows this pairing delivers exceptionally high frame rates across all tested resolutions and presets, with the RTX 4090 shouldering most of the rendering load while the i5-11400F holds its ground. The database places this combo at rank 284 out of 3714 tested configurations, placing it in the top 8% of all recorded system pairings for this title.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average frame rate is 157 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next closest result is 148.8 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the recorded average FPS is 77.2, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold by a comfortable margin. All four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at 4K are marked as playable.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177. Its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 7H12, scores 17120 (0.3% lower), while the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239 (0.4% higher). The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is 0.6% above, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U is 0.6% below.

Q: What is the performance gap between the RTX 4090 and its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 4090 has an average benchmark score of 60347. The Intel Arc Pro A60 scores 60326 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60140 (0.3% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61896 (2.5% higher). The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58657 (2.9% lower).

Q: Which resolution shows the smallest frame rate drop from Low to Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the drop from Low (157 FPS) to Ultra (129.1 FPS) is 27.9 FPS, or about 17.8%. At 2560x1440, the drop is 42.9 FPS (from 148.8 to 105.9), and at 3840x2160, the drop is 51.2 FPS (from 128.4 to 77.2). The 1080p configuration shows the smallest absolute and relative penalty.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more at 4K resolution?

A: The data indicates the GPU becomes the primary constraint at 3840x2160. The average FPS drops from 128.4 at Low to 77.2 at Ultra, a 39.9% reduction, which is characteristic of GPU-bound rendering. At 1080p, the same settings change only reduces FPS by 17.8%, suggesting the CPU has more headroom relative to the GPU at lower resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for being demanding on both processor and graphics hardware, but the recorded measurements show how the balance shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the frame rates across all settings remain tightly clustered: Low yields 157 FPS, Medium 142.3 FPS, High 130.7 FPS, and Ultra 129.1 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is just 27.9 FPS, which means the CPU is likely keeping up with the RTX 4090's output at this resolution. The i5-11400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, provides sufficient single-thread performance to avoid becoming a severe bottleneck at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the gap widens. Low settings produce 148.8 FPS, Medium 135.9 FPS, High 107.4 FPS, and Ultra 105.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra grows to 42.9 FPS, indicating the GPU is starting to feel the load of higher pixel counts. The RTX 4090's 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and 384-bit bus provide ample bandwidth for 1440p, but the rendering workload scales with resolution, and the frame rate begins to drop more noticeably as settings increase.

At 3840x2160, the GPU clearly dominates the performance picture. Low settings still deliver 128.4 FPS, but Medium drops to 107.3 FPS, High to 81.3 FPS, and Ultra to 77.2 FPS. The total reduction from Low to Ultra is 51.2 FPS, a 39.9% decrease. This is a textbook sign of GPU-bound behavior: the RTX 4090's compute units are working harder at 4K, and the CPU has plenty of headroom to feed the GPU. The i5-11400F, which scores 2981 in Passmark single-thread tests, is not the limiting factor at 4K; the GPU's rendering capacity is.

The scaling between resolutions also tells a story. At Ultra settings, 1080p yields 129.1 FPS, 1440p yields 105.9 FPS, and 4K yields 77.2 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 51.9 FPS, or 40.2%. At Low settings, the same resolution change goes from 157 FPS to 128.4 FPS, a drop of 28.6 FPS or 18.2%. This pattern confirms that the GPU's workload increases disproportionately with resolution, while the CPU's role stays relatively constant. For this game and this hardware combination, the RTX 4090 is the dominant factor at 4K, while the i5-11400F is more relevant at 1080p where frame rates are purely CPU-limited.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data includes average FPS for three resolutions and four settings levels. Minimum and maximum frame rates were not captured in the database, so the analysis relies on the average values.

At 1920x1080, the system produces its highest frame rates. Low settings average 157 FPS, which is the single fastest result in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 142.3 FPS, High settings average 130.7 FPS, and Ultra settings average 129.1 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal at 1.6 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds little additional load at this resolution. All four settings exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold by a wide margin, with the lowest result (Ultra) still being 2.15 times the threshold.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates remain high but show more variation. Low settings average 148.8 FPS, Medium 135.9 FPS, High 107.4 FPS, and Ultra 105.9 FPS. The step from Medium to High is the largest in this resolution, a drop of 28.5 FPS, indicating that the High preset introduces significant visual effects that tax the GPU. The Ultra preset only costs an additional 1.5 FPS over High, similar to the pattern seen at 1080p. Every setting at 1440p clears 60 FPS, with the lowest (Ultra) still 76.5% above the threshold.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are lower but still playable across the board. Low settings average 128.4 FPS, Medium 107.3 FPS, High 81.3 FPS, and Ultra 77.2 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 21.1 FPS, from Medium to High is 26 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 4.1 FPS. The High to Ultra step is the smallest in this resolution, suggesting diminishing returns from the most demanding preset. The Ultra setting at 4K still delivers 77.2 FPS, which is 28.7% above the 60 FPS threshold.

Comparing across resolutions, the 1080p Low result (157 FPS) is the best case, while the 4K Ultra result (77.2 FPS) is the worst case. The total range across all twelve measurements is 79.8 FPS, from 77.2 to 157. This shows that the system maintains high performance even under the heaviest settings and highest pixel counts.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The recorded data answers with a definitive yes at every resolution and every preset. The verdict by resolution shows that all four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are marked as playable at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and this system exceeds it in every single measurement.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra with an average FPS of 129.1. This is more than double the 60 FPS threshold, leaving massive headroom for heavy simulation scenarios, dense scenery, or background tasks. At 2560x1440, Ultra settings deliver 105.9 FPS, still well above the threshold. At 3840x2160, Ultra settings deliver 77.2 FPS, which is 28.7% above the threshold and perfectly smooth for a flight simulator.

The verdict is clear: this combination can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at maximum settings in 4K without dipping below 60 FPS on average. The RTX 4090's immense compute power (82.58 TFLOPS FP32) and the i5-11400F's competent single-thread performance (2981 in Passmark single-thread, 2024 in Cinebench R23 single-core) combine to deliver a high-end experience. Even the most demanding preset, Ultra at 4K, stays comfortably above the playable threshold. Users who prefer higher frame rates can drop to High settings at 4K for 81.3 FPS, or Medium for 107.3 FPS, but none of this is necessary for a playable experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i5-11400F sits at an average benchmark score of 17177, which places it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow band. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, just 0.3% lower, and would behave nearly identically in this game. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4% higher, offering a marginal improvement in multi-threaded workloads. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6% higher, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U scores 17074, 0.6% lower. All four rivals are within a 1.2% band of the i5-11400F, so swapping to any of them would produce virtually indistinguishable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, particularly at 4K where the GPU dominates.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 has an average benchmark score of 60347 and sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are also tightly clustered. The Intel Arc Pro A60 scores 60326, a 0% delta, meaning it would deliver essentially the same frame rates in this game. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60140, 0.3% lower, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 61896, 2.5% higher, which could translate to a few extra FPS in GPU-bound scenarios. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58657, 2.9% lower, which would likely still clear the 60 FPS threshold at 4K Ultra but with less headroom than the RTX 4090.

Users considering alternatives should note that the CPU rivals are all within a marginal performance band, so the choice between them would not materially change the in-game experience. The GPU rivals show slightly more variance, with the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M offering the highest score and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 the lowest. However, all of these alternatives are close enough that the overall verdict would remain the same: playable at all resolutions and presets, with the best experience at 1080p and 1440p.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database provides a clear recommendation for the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at each resolution. In all three cases, the answer is Ultra settings, as the system never drops below 77.2 FPS even at the heaviest configuration.

At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra with an average FPS of 129.1. This is the highest frame rate among all Ultra results and provides the smoothest experience. The gap between Ultra (129.1 FPS) and High (130.7 FPS) is only 1.6 FPS, so there is no practical reason to drop below Ultra at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra with an average FPS of 105.9. The High preset delivers 107.4 FPS, which is only 1.5 FPS higher, making the Ultra preset the obvious choice for maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing frame rate. Both settings are far above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra with an average FPS of 77.2. This is the lowest result in the dataset but still 28.7% above the playable threshold. The High preset delivers 81.3 FPS, which is 4.1 FPS higher, but the Ultra preset offers the full visual experience while maintaining a smooth average frame rate. For users who prioritize frame rate stability above everything else, High at 4K is a reasonable fallback, but the data shows Ultra is fully playable.

In summary, this system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at Ultra settings at every resolution tested. The RTX 4090 provides enough rendering power to handle the most demanding presets, and the i5-11400F keeps up without introducing CPU bottlenecks at 4K. The only scenario where the CPU might matter more is at 1080p Low settings, where 157 FPS approaches the limits of what the processor can feed to the GPU, but even that result is more than sufficient for any display.