Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers consistently high frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator across all tested resolutions and presets. Based on recorded measurements, every configuration examined clears the 60 FPS playable threshold, with the most demanding settings still providing substantial headroom. This combination ranks 264th out of 3714 tested combos for this title, placing it in the upper portion of the database’s tested hardware pairings.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which records an average of 127.5 FPS. This is the highest visual quality tier available in the measurement set, and it still delivers more than double the playable threshold. Lower presets at this resolution also perform strongly: High averages 130.6 FPS, Medium 143.4 FPS, and Low 160.1 FPS. The gap between Ultra and Low is 32.6 FPS, indicating that even the heaviest settings do not stress this hardware enough to approach the 60 FPS floor.

Moving to 2560x1440, the best settings that maintain 60 FPS or higher is again Ultra, with an average of 107.9 FPS. This represents a 19.6 FPS drop compared to the same Ultra preset at 1080p. The other presets at this resolution remain well above the threshold: High averages 115.7 FPS, Medium 133.6 FPS, and Low 146.1 FPS. Even at this higher pixel count, the hardware retains significant performance headroom, with the lowest average still being 47.9 FPS above the playable mark.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which averages 79.2 FPS. This is the closest any configuration comes to the threshold, but it still clears it by 19.2 FPS. The other presets at 4K also remain playable: High averages 81 FPS, Medium 109 FPS, and Low 132.3 FPS. The recorded data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the system does not dip below the 60 FPS line, making this the recommended settings tier for users who prioritize visual fidelity.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals how the workload shifts between the Intel Core i5-11400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090. At 1920x1080, the GPU has less pixel work to perform, so the CPU plays a relatively larger role in determining final frame rates. This is evident in the relatively small spread between presets: Ultra at 127.5 FPS versus Low at 160.1 FPS, a difference of 32.6 FPS. The CPU’s six cores and twelve threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, appear sufficient to feed the GPU without becoming a severe bottleneck at this resolution, though the frame rate ceiling is clearly limited by CPU performance rather than GPU capability.

As resolution increases to 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take on more responsibility. The spread between presets narrows slightly: Ultra at 107.9 FPS versus Low at 146.1 FPS, a difference of 38.2 FPS. This widening gap indicates that the GPU is starting to feel the effect of additional pixels, but the CPU still contributes meaningfully, as evidenced by the fact that even the fastest preset (Low) does not exceed 146.1 FPS. The CPU’s single-thread performance, measured at 2,024 in Cinebench R23 single-core, appears adequate for this simulation’s physics and weather calculations, but it does impose an upper bound on frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor. The difference between Ultra and Low grows to 53.1 FPS (79.2 versus 132.3), indicating that pixel throughput is now the primary constraint. The RTX 5090’s 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for the high-resolution textures and draw distances that Microsoft Flight Simulator demands, but the raw shading throughput of 104.8 TFLOPS is what ultimately determines performance at this level. The CPU’s role diminishes, as frame rates are now limited by the GPU’s ability to fill pixels rather than the CPU’s ability to simulate game logic.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the i5-11400F is the limiting component, while at 4K, the RTX 5090 is the limiting component. At 1440p, the balance is intermediate, with both components contributing to the observed frame rates. This pattern is typical for a high-end GPU paired with a mid-range CPU from an older generation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low 160.1 FPS, Medium 143.4 FPS, High 130.6 FPS, and Ultra 127.5 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 16.7 FPS, from Medium to High costs 12.8 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs only 3.1 FPS. This diminishing impact of higher presets suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual effects that do not heavily tax the GPU at this resolution, or that the CPU is already near its performance ceiling. No minimum or maximum frame rates were recorded in the database, so the analysis relies solely on averages.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 146.1 FPS, Medium 133.6 FPS, High 115.7 FPS, and Ultra 107.9 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium reduces performance by 12.5 FPS, Medium to High by 17.9 FPS, and High to Ultra by 7.8 FPS. Compared to 1080p, each preset loses a similar amount of performance, with Ultra losing 19.6 FPS, High losing 14.9 FPS, Medium losing 9.8 FPS, and Low losing 14.0 FPS. The consistent reduction across presets indicates that the additional pixels at 1440p impose a proportional load on the GPU.

At 3840x2160, the averages are: Low 132.3 FPS, Medium 109 FPS, High 81 FPS, and Ultra 79.2 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 23.3 FPS, Medium to High is 28 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 1.8 FPS. The large drop between Medium and High suggests that the High preset enables significant GPU-intensive effects such as higher shadow quality or more detailed terrain rendering. The minimal difference between High and Ultra at 4K indicates that the Ultra preset does not add much additional load beyond High, or that the GPU is already saturated and cannot take advantage of the extra settings. Compared to 1440p, 4K Ultra loses 28.7 FPS, High loses 34.7 FPS, Medium loses 24.6 FPS, and Low loses 13.8 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are the AMD EPYC 7H12, Intel Core i5-12450H, AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U. The EPYC 7H12 scores within 0.3 percent of the i5-11400F’s average benchmark score, making it effectively equivalent in general compute performance. The i5-12450H is 0.4 percent faster, the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is 0.6 percent faster, and the Core Ultra 7 164U is 0.6 percent slower. These differences are within the margin of measurement noise, so any of these CPUs would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the RTX 5090. The i5-11400F sits at the 71st percentile of all CPUs tested, meaning it outperforms roughly seven out of ten processors in the database.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB, AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT, and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X. The Tesla P100 16 GB is 0.3 percent faster, the Tesla P100 12 GB is 0.6 percent faster, the RX 6850M XT is 1.1 percent faster, and the Pro Vega 64X is 1.4 percent slower. These are all within a narrow band of performance, so swapping the RTX 5090 for any of these would result in very similar frame rates in this game. The RTX 5090 itself ranks at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, indicating that it is among the top eight percent of graphics cards tested.

In practical terms, a user with the i5-11400F could expect that swapping to an i5-12450H or Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G would change frame rates by less than one percent. Similarly, switching the RTX 5090 to an RX 6850M XT would yield a 1.1 percent increase in average benchmark score, which would translate to roughly one additional frame per second at 4K Ultra. These alternatives are useful for understanding how sensitive the system is to component changes, but none would fundamentally alter the playability profile described here.

The Verdict

The database’s verdict is unambiguous: this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at all tested resolutions and presets with frame rates well above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, the best settings are Ultra with an average of 127.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, Ultra again provides the highest quality with 107.9 FPS. At 3840x2160, Ultra remains playable at 79.2 FPS. Every preset at every resolution clears the playable threshold, meaning there is no configuration in the measured data that would require reducing settings to achieve smooth gameplay.

The minimum recorded average across all twelve measurements is 79.2 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is 19.2 FPS above the playable line. This headroom suggests that the system could potentially handle even more demanding scenarios, such as densely populated airports or heavy weather, without dropping below 60 FPS, though those specific conditions were not tested. For users seeking maximum visual quality, the Ultra preset at 4K is the appropriate choice. For users who prefer higher refresh rates, the Low preset at 1080p offers 160.1 FPS, which would exceed the refresh rate of most displays.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU and GPU pairing ranks 264th out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 7.1 percent of all combinations in the database. The ranking reflects the fact that the RTX 5090 is an extremely high-end GPU, while the i5-11400F is a more modest processor. The combination benefits from the GPU’s massive performance headroom, but the CPU limits the maximum possible frame rates, particularly at lower resolutions where CPU overhead is more significant.

The high rank relative to other combos is driven primarily by the GPU’s 92nd percentile standing among all graphics cards. The CPU’s 71st percentile is respectable but not exceptional. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for being demanding on both CPU and GPU due to its complex simulation and rendering workloads, this pairing achieves a balance that yields playable performance at all tested settings. The 264th rank out of 3714 indicates that there are 263 combos that perform better, likely featuring higher-end CPUs paired with similarly powerful GPUs, but the vast majority of tested combinations fall below this system.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest settings preset that maintains 60 FPS at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset averages 79.2 FPS, which is the highest quality tier tested and remains above the 60 FPS threshold. High averages 81 FPS, Medium 109 FPS, and Low 132.3 FPS, so all presets at 4K are playable.

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

A: The average frame rate at 1920x1080 Ultra is 127.5 FPS, while at 3840x2160 Ultra it is 79.2 FPS. This represents a loss of 48.3 FPS, or roughly 37.9 percent of the 1080p performance.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the spread between Low (146.1 FPS) and Ultra (107.9 FPS) is 38.2 FPS, which is wider than at 1080p (32.6 FPS) but narrower than at 4K (53.1 FPS). This suggests that both components contribute to the frame rate limit, with the GPU becoming more significant as resolution increases.

Q: What is the rank of this CPU and GPU combination for this game?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 combination ranks 264th out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 7.1 percent of all pairings.

Q: Are there any tested settings where the average frame rate drops below 60 FPS?

A: No. The lowest recorded average in the measurement set is 79.2 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. All twelve combinations of resolution and preset exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: The i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17,177. The nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7H12, scores 17,120 (0.3 percent slower), while the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17,239 (0.4 percent faster). These differences are negligible in practice.