Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER shows a clear pattern: the simulator is demanding at higher resolutions, but the system can deliver smooth playability at 1080p across all presets. The database includes average FPS readings at three resolutions with four quality presets each, totaling twelve measured scenarios. No minimum or maximum frame time data was recorded, so the analysis relies on average FPS values only.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates as settings increase. The Low preset averages 62.9 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold, but that is the only playable option at 4K. Medium drops to 53.0 FPS, High falls to 38.2 FPS, and Ultra sits nearly identical to High at 38.8 FPS. This indicates that the Ultra preset at 4K is not meaningfully more punishing than High, but both remain far below the playability line. The gap between Low and Medium is just under 10 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs roughly 15 FPS, a much larger penalty.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves noticeably. Low averages 86.9 FPS, Medium averages 66.3 FPS, and High averages 53.9 FPS, while Ultra lands at 49.3 FPS. The playable presets at this resolution are Low and Medium. High falls short of the 60 FPS threshold by about 6 FPS, and Ultra trails by roughly 11 FPS. The scaling from Medium to High costs about 12.4 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs only 4.6 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns in the upper preset range.

At 1920x1080, the system performs well across the board. Low averages 112.6 FPS, Medium averages 87.8 FPS, High averages 63.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 63.4 FPS. All four presets clear the 60 FPS threshold, making 1080p the only resolution where the full range of settings is playable. The difference between High and Ultra is negligible at just 0.4 FPS, meaning users can enable Ultra without sacrificing measurable performance. The largest single drop occurs between Low and Medium, a loss of 24.8 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 24.0 FPS.

Resolution scaling is consistent: moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces FPS by roughly 20 to 25 percent depending on preset, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces performance by another 30 to 40 percent. The Ultra preset at 4K is the worst case in the dataset at 38.8 FPS, while Low at 1080p is the best case at 112.6 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but only on the Low preset. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings is 62.9 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 53.0, 38.2, and 38.8 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 1440p?

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440, with an average of 66.3 FPS. Low also clears the threshold at 86.9 FPS, but Medium offers higher visual quality while remaining playable.

Q: Is Ultra playable at 1080p with this hardware?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 63.4 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playability threshold. High averages 63.8 FPS, so the difference between High and Ultra is only 0.4 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 2070 SUPER compare to nearby GPUs in the database?

A: The GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M with a score 1 percent lower, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 1.2 percent lower, the Intel Arc B570 at 1.3 percent lower, and the Intel Arc A750 at 1.5 percent lower. This places the RTX 2070 SUPER at the top of that cluster.

Q: How does the CPU compare to nearby processors in the database?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with a matching average score, the Intel Core 5 120 at 0.3 percent lower, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D at 0.3 percent lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H at 0.4 percent higher. The CPU is effectively tied with these processors in overall benchmark performance.

Q: Does the game run better at lower resolutions across all presets?

A: Yes, the data shows a consistent improvement as resolution decreases. For example, the Medium preset averages 53.0 FPS at 4K, 66.3 FPS at 1440p, and 87.8 FPS at 1080p. The same pattern holds for Low, High, and Ultra presets, with 1080p always delivering the highest average FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest-rival comparisons for both the CPU and the GPU, which helps identify hardware that would behave similarly in Microsoft Flight Simulator with this combination.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292 and sits at the 77th percentile. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS posts an average score of 25284, a delta of 0 percent, meaning it is effectively identical in overall performance. The Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362, 0.3 percent higher, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365, also 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25201, 0.4 percent lower. In practical terms, any of these processors would produce nearly the same frame rates in this game when paired with the RTX 2070 SUPER. The differences are within roughly half a percent, so users upgrading or building with one of these CPUs should expect the same measured FPS values in the database.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 20282 and sits at the 65th percentile. The closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M with a score of 20480, 1 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, 1.2 percent higher, and the Intel Arc B570 scores 20556, 1.3 percent higher. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, 1.5 percent higher. All four rivals are within 1.5 percent of the RTX 2070 SUPER, so any of these GPUs would deliver nearly identical performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator at the same settings and resolutions. The RTX 3070 Mobile is a laptop part, so its desktop equivalent might differ, but the recorded scores place it in the same performance window.

When considering a full system swap, combining any of the listed CPUs with any of the listed GPUs would produce frame rates very close to those recorded for the i5-13400F and RTX 2070 SUPER combination. The CPU rivals are all within 0.4 percent, and the GPU rivals are all within 1.5 percent, so the playable presets at each resolution would remain the same: Low at 4K, Low and Medium at 1440p, and all four presets at 1080p.

The Verdict

The data indicates that this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable experience depends heavily on resolution and preset selection. The playability threshold in the database is set at 60 FPS average, and the verdict by resolution is clear.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset is playable, with an average of 62.9 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, so users targeting 4K must accept Low settings or lower the resolution. The best playable setting at 4K is Low, and it barely clears the threshold.

At 2560x1440, Low and Medium are both playable. Low averages 86.9 FPS and Medium averages 66.3 FPS. High falls short at 53.9 FPS, and Ultra sits at 49.3 FPS. The best playable setting at 1440p is Medium, which provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS line.

At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable. Low averages 112.6 FPS, Medium averages 87.8 FPS, High averages 63.8 FPS, and Ultra averages 63.4 FPS. The best playable setting at 1080p is Ultra, with an average of 63.4 FPS, which clears the threshold by a small margin. High performs essentially the same at 63.8 FPS, so users who prefer a slightly higher frame rate can choose High without sacrificing much visual quality.

Overall, the system is best suited for 1080p gaming with this title, where it can run the highest preset above 60 FPS. At 1440p, it remains playable at Medium, and at 4K it is only playable at Low. The verdict is positive for 1080p and 1440p users, but 4K users must make significant compromises.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for stressing both the CPU and GPU, and the measured data from this combination reveals how each component contributes at different resolutions and presets.

The resolution scaling in the data is the key indicator of GPU load. At 1080p, the Low preset averages 112.6 FPS, while at 1440p it drops to 86.9 FPS and at 4K it drops to 62.9 FPS. This steady decline as resolution increases is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the render target size drives performance. The GPU is clearly the limiting factor at higher resolutions, especially at 4K where even Low settings only reach 62.9 FPS.

The preset scaling shows a different pattern. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 24.8 FPS, from Medium to High costs 24.0 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs only 0.4 FPS. The small drop between High and Ultra suggests that the Ultra preset at 1080p is not substantially more demanding than High, or that the CPU begins to limit performance at these frame rates. At 1440p, the same steps cost 20.6 FPS, 12.4 FPS, and 4.6 FPS respectively. At 4K, the steps cost 9.9 FPS, 14.8 FPS, and negative 0.6 FPS (Ultra is actually 0.6 FPS higher than High, a negligible measurement difference). The shrinking cost of preset increases at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution rises, making preset changes less impactful.

The CPU's role is most visible at 1080p, where frame rates are high enough that the processor can become a limiting factor. The fact that High and Ultra at 1080p are nearly identical (63.8 versus 63.4 FPS) suggests that the CPU may be holding performance back at the top end, preventing the GPU from pushing higher frame rates as settings increase. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is clearly the primary constraint, as shown by the large FPS drops when resolution increases.

In practical terms, users at 1080p should focus on GPU settings first, but the CPU is also relevant at the highest presets. Users at 1440p and 4K should prioritize GPU headroom, since the CPU has enough performance to keep up at those frame rates. The data shows that this combination is balanced enough to avoid severe CPU bottlenecks at any resolution, but the GPU is the component that determines whether a given preset is playable at 1440p and 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database identifies the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at each resolution, based on the measured average FPS.

At 3840x2160, the best playable setting is Low, with an average FPS of 62.9. Medium falls to 53.0 FPS, High to 38.2 FPS, and Ultra to 38.8 FPS, all below the 60 FPS threshold. Users at 4K should run Low settings to maintain a playable frame rate, with a margin of only 2.9 FPS above the threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is Medium, with an average FPS of 66.3. Low also clears the threshold at 86.9 FPS, but Medium offers higher visual quality while maintaining a 6.3 FPS margin above 60 FPS. High and Ultra are not playable, with averages of 53.9 and 49.3 FPS respectively.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Ultra, with an average FPS of 63.4. High is nearly identical at 63.8 FPS, Medium averages 87.8 FPS, and Low averages 112.6 FPS. All four presets are playable at 1080p, so users can choose Ultra without dropping below the 60 FPS line, though the margin is only 3.4 FPS. For users who want extra headroom, High provides the same visual experience at 63.8 FPS, and Medium offers a much larger margin at 87.8 FPS.

In summary, the recommended settings are Low at 4K, Medium at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p. These are the highest presets that clear the 60 FPS playability threshold in the measured data, and they represent the best balance of visual quality and frame rate for this hardware combination.