Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator places an exceptionally heavy load on the rendering pipeline, and the recorded data for the Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER shows a wide spread of performance depending on where the resolution and quality sliders land. The measurements cover three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) and four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with average FPS captured for each combination. No minimum or maximum frame time values were recorded in the database, so the analysis below relies strictly on average frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the combination starts at 62.8 FPS on Low, then drops to 50 FPS on Medium, 40.3 FPS on High, and bottoms out at 38.4 FPS on Ultra. The step from Low to Medium costs 12.8 FPS, a 20.4% reduction relative to the Low result. Moving from Medium to High costs another 9.7 FPS, and the final step to Ultra costs only 1.9 FPS more. The scaling is not linear: the largest single drop occurs between Low and Medium, while the High-to-Ultra transition is comparatively small. This suggests that at 4K the GPU is already saturated, and the extra work introduced by Ultra settings does not translate into a proportionally larger frame rate penalty because the renderer is likely bottlenecked earlier in the pipeline.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with higher absolute numbers. Low delivers 86.8 FPS, Medium delivers 71 FPS, High delivers 50.3 FPS, and Ultra delivers 49.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 15.8 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 0.8 FPS. Notably, the drop from Medium to High is 20.7 FPS, which is the steepest single-preset penalty across all resolutions. This indicates that at 1440p, the High preset introduces a significant increase in shading and post-processing load that the RTX 2070 SUPER cannot absorb without a substantial frame rate hit.

At 1920x1080, the combination is far more comfortable. Low runs at 114 FPS, Medium at 87.2 FPS, High at 64.8 FPS, and Ultra at 61.8 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 3 FPS, which is the smallest gap between those two presets at any resolution. The difference between Low and Medium is 26.8 FPS, and between Medium and High is 22.4 FPS. The 1080p results show that the CPU and GPU together have enough headroom to keep even the heaviest preset above the 60 FPS threshold, but just barely: Ultra clears 60 FPS by only 1.8 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the database shows that the Low preset is the only one that stays comfortably above 60 FPS at both 1440p and 4K, while the Medium preset becomes playable only when the resolution drops to 1440p. The High preset is playable only at 1080p. The Ultra preset follows the same boundary: playable at 1080p, not at 1440p or 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold in the database is defined as 60 FPS. Using that threshold, the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS at each resolution is as follows.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset qualifies. It runs at 62.8 FPS, which clears the threshold by 2.8 FPS. The next step up, Medium, drops to 50 FPS, a 12.8 FPS deficit. Therefore, 4K users are restricted to Low settings if they want a smooth experience. The margin is thin, so any additional in-game weather or scenery complexity could push the average below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is Medium, which runs at 71 FPS. This clears the threshold by 11 FPS, providing a more comfortable margin than the 4K Low result. Low runs at 86.8 FPS, but Medium is the highest preset that stays above 60 FPS. High drops to 50.3 FPS, which is 9.7 FPS below the threshold, so it is not recommended for 1440p play.

At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is Ultra, which runs at 61.8 FPS. This clears the threshold by only 1.8 FPS. High runs at 64.8 FPS, Medium at 87.2 FPS, and Low at 114 FPS. All four presets are technically playable at 1080p, but the margin at Ultra is narrow. Users who want a safety buffer might prefer High, which is 3 FPS faster than Ultra while still offering high visual quality.

The verdict data in the database confirms these boundaries: the playable settings list for 3840x2160 contains only Low, for 2560x1440 it contains Low and Medium, and for 1920x1080 it contains all four presets. The best settings field for each resolution matches the analysis above: Low at 4K, Medium at 1440p, and Ultra at 1080p.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy CPU usage during terrain and scenery processing, but the measured data here shows that the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as resolution increases. The evidence lies in how frame rates scale between presets and resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the frame rate spread between Low (114 FPS) and Ultra (61.8 FPS) is 52.2 FPS. This wide spread indicates that the GPU is doing most of the work: when the preset is lowered, the GPU finishes frames faster, and the CPU is able to feed it without becoming the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck at 1080p, lowering the preset would have a smaller effect because the CPU would still be unable to prepare frames quickly enough. The data shows the opposite, so the RTX 2070 SUPER is the primary limiter at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the spread between Low (86.8 FPS) and Ultra (49.5 FPS) is 37.3 FPS. The absolute frame rates are lower than at 1080p at every preset, which is expected because the GPU must rasterize more pixels. The fact that Low at 1440p (86.8 FPS) is slower than Low at 1080p (114 FPS) by 27.2 FPS confirms that pixel throughput is a major factor. The CPU has not changed between these runs, so the performance difference must come from the GPU's resolution scaling.

At 3840x2160, the spread between Low (62.8 FPS) and Ultra (38.4 FPS) is 24.4 FPS. The absolute frame rates are much lower across the board, and even the Low preset barely clears 60 FPS. The compression of the spread at 4K is telling: as the GPU becomes increasingly overloaded, the relative difference between presets shrinks because every frame is bottlenecked by pixel fill and shading throughput. The CPU's role diminishes further at 4K, as the GPU cannot produce frames quickly enough to expose any CPU limitation.

The scaling between resolutions at the same preset tells a similar story. At Low, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rate from 114 to 86.8 FPS, a 23.9% drop. Moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it from 86.8 to 62.8 FPS, a 27.6% drop. At Ultra, moving from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rate from 61.8 to 49.5 FPS, a 19.9% drop, and moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it from 49.5 to 38.4 FPS, a 22.4% drop. The consistent double-digit percentage drops at every resolution step indicate that the GPU is the scaling bottleneck. The Core i5-14400F, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, appears to be sufficient to keep the GPU fed at 1080p, but at 1440p and 4K the GPU's limits dominate the results.

The database also shows that the CPU sits in the 83rd percentile of all tested CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 65th percentile of all tested GPUs. This percentile gap reinforces the interpretation: the GPU is the weaker component in this pairing for this particular game, and its influence grows at higher resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for how this specific CPU and GPU compare to other hardware that would behave similarly in terms of overall benchmark scores.

For the Intel Core i5-14400F, the closest matching CPU is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, which has an average score that is 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i9-11900 is 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i7-12800H is 0.5% higher. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS is 0.2% lower. These deltas are all within a half of a percent, meaning that in a CPU-bound scenario, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates. For Microsoft Flight Simulator at lower resolutions or with a more powerful GPU, swapping the Core i5-14400F for any of these rivals would not meaningfully change the outcome.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER, the nearest rivals are all within 1.5% of its average score. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is 1% slower, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is 1.2% slower, the Intel Arc B570 is 1.3% slower, and the Intel Arc A750 is 1.5% slower. These small deltas mean that in GPU-bound scenarios, which the measured data shows this game often is at 1440p and 4K, any of these graphics cards would produce very similar frame rates. The RTX 3070 Mobile being slightly slower than the desktop RTX 2070 SUPER is notable, as it shows that mobile variants of higher-tier GPUs do not necessarily outperform older desktop cards.

The practical implication is that this combination sits in a cluster of hardware with similar overall capability. Users who own any of the rival CPUs or GPUs listed above can expect broadly comparable performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, assuming the rest of the system is configured similarly.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination at 2241 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the lower half of all tested configurations, despite the CPU being in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs and the GPU being in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The rank is driven by the game's demanding nature and the GPU's relative weakness compared to the CPU.

A rank of 2241 out of 3714 means that roughly 60% of tested combos perform better than this one in this specific game. That is not a flattering position, but it is also not near the bottom. The combo outperforms the bottom 40% of tested systems, which includes much older hardware and lower-tier components. The rank also reflects the fact that Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the database, so a mid-range GPU from the Turing generation will naturally land lower in the rankings than it would in a less demanding game.

The percentile positions of the individual components versus the combo rank tell an important story. The CPU is well above average, but the GPU is only modestly above average. In a game that scales heavily with GPU load, the combo rank is pulled down by the GPU. If the same CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the combo rank would likely improve substantially, because the CPU has headroom to feed a faster graphics card.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: Yes. All four presets are playable at 1920x1080. Low runs at 114 FPS, Medium at 87.2 FPS, High at 64.8 FPS, and Ultra at 61.8 FPS. The Ultra preset clears the 60 FPS threshold by 1.8 FPS.

Q: What is the best setting for 1440p?

A: Medium is the best playable preset at 2560x1440, running at 71 FPS. High drops to 50.3 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: Only on Low settings. The Low preset at 3840x2160 runs at 62.8 FPS. Medium drops to 50 FPS, High to 40.3 FPS, and Ultra to 38.4 FPS.

Q: How much faster is 1080p Ultra compared to 4K Ultra?

A: 1080p Ultra runs at 61.8 FPS, while 4K Ultra runs at 38.4 FPS. That is a difference of 23.4 FPS, with the 1080p result being about 61% faster.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck, especially at 1440p and 4K. The frame rate drops significantly as resolution increases, while the CPU remains in the 83rd percentile of all tested CPUs. The GPU is in the 65th percentile.

Q: How does the Core i5-14400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U is 0.1% faster, the Intel Core i9-11900 is 0.2% faster, the Intel Core i7-12800H is 0.5% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS is 0.2% slower. All are within half a percent of the Core i5-14400F.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-14400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER combination can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the experience depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset, including Ultra at 61.8 FPS. This makes 1080p the only resolution where the user has full freedom to choose any quality level. At 2560x1440, the system is playable on Low (86.8 FPS) and Medium (71 FPS), but High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, with a narrow margin of 62.8 FPS.

The verdict by resolution from the database is clear: 1080p supports all four presets, 1440p supports Low and Medium, and 4K supports only Low. The best settings at each resolution are Ultra at 1080p, Medium at 1440p, and Low at 4K. Users who prioritize visual fidelity should play at 1080p with Ultra settings. Users who prioritize resolution should drop to Low at 4K, but the margin is slim and any additional scene complexity could push the frame rate below 60 FPS. The data indicates that this is a capable 1080p machine for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a moderate 1440p machine with reduced settings, and a marginal 4K machine restricted to the lowest preset.