Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Intel Core i5-14400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060: Microsoft Flight Simulator Benchmarked

The combination of an Intel Core i5-14400F and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is a mainstream desktop pairing that targets high-refresh 1080p gaming and competent 1440p performance. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the question is less about brute rasterization and more about sustained CPU-bound simulation load. This title is notoriously demanding on the processor for its world-simulation and flight model, while the GPU handles the scenery and aircraft rendering.

The benchmark data shows a system that is strong at 1920x1080, capable at 2560x1440, and stretched to its limits at 4K. The measured FPS data is a solid indicator of where this hardware lands: it clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p with room to spare, but falls short at 4K on high and ultra presets.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840 x 2160 (4K)

| Setting | Avg FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 70.2 |

| Medium | 52.4 |

| High | 40.6 |

| Ultra | 37.9 |

At 4K, the data shows a steep drop-off as settings increase. Low runs at 70.2 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium dips to 52.4 FPS, a 25% drop from Low. High and Ultra land at 40.6 and 37.9 FPS respectively. The scaling between presets indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at this resolution, as the 3,072 shading units of the RTX 4060 are simply outclassed by the 8.3 million pixel workload at Ultra.

2560 x 1440

| Setting | CPU FPS |

|---|---|

| Low | 96.8 |

| Medium | 72.1 |

| High | 59.0 |

| Ultra | 53.9 |

At 2560x1440, the data tells a story of a CPU that is more than capable, with the GPU starting to struggle. Low runs at 96.8 FPS, and Medium at 72.1 FPS. High dips to 59.0 FPS, barely under the 60 FPS line. The CPU scaling is the key factor here: the i5-14400F's 10 cores and 16 threads keep the simulation and world-rendering engine fed, while the RTX 4060's 24 RT cores handle the increased pixel count.

1920 x 1080

| Setting | CPU FPS |

| Low | 118.9 |

| Medium | 92.5 |

| High | 72.5 |

| Ultra | 65.8 |

At 1080p, this system is in its element. Low runs at 118.9 FPS, Medium at 92.5 FPS. Even Ultra, the most demanding preset in the data, holds at 65.8 FPS. The CPU is decisively less of a factor here. The i5-14400F's boost clock of 4.70 GHz keeps the game's heavy single-threaded physics and scenery-loading tasks in check. The GPU is the clear bottleneck at this resolution, with the RTX 4060's 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 rate becoming the limiting resource.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU. Microsoft Flight Simulator is unusual among games in that it heavily taxes both. The CPU is responsible for the simulation engine, including flight physics, weather, and the vast world simulation that streams data for the scenery. The GPU renders the terrain, aircraft models, and photogrammetry data.

At 1920x1080, the CPU is the star. The i5-14400F's 10-core design (6 performance cores, 4 efficient cores) at 4.70 GHz boost keeps frame pacing smooth. The GPU has headroom: the RTX 4060's 272 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB GDDR6 memory are not fully pushed, so framerates stay high even at Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The GPU's 3,072 shading units and 48 ROPs start to feel the load. FPS at Ultra drops to 52.9, a 19% reduction from the 1080p Ultra number. The CPU still has capacity left, but the GPU is now the gating factor.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the primary constraint. The 4K workload requires a 128-bit memory bus and the RTX 4060's 272 GB/s bandwidth simply doesn't have enough throughput for High or Ultra. FPS drops to 40.6 and 37.9 respectively. Even Medium at 52.4 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold. The CPU's role diminishes at this resolution because the GPU's pixel throughput (rated at 118.1 GPixel/s) is the ceiling.

Best Settings per Resolution

3840 x 2160: The data shows only Low is playable, averaging 70.2 FPS. Medium (52.4), High (40.6), and Ultra (37.9) all fall short of the 60 FPS threshold.

2560 x 1440: Medium is the highest playable preset at 72.1 FPS. Low runs at 96.8 FPS, but Medium keeps you above the line with better visuals. High (59.0) and Ultra (53.9) are right at or below the 60 FPS line.

1920 x 1080: Ultra is playable at 65.8 FPS. The GPU has enough headroom to keep High (72.5) and Medium (92.5) clearly above the threshold, but Ultra gives the best image quality while still clearing 60 FPS.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data supports the following:

• 1920x1080: All four presets run above 60 FPS. Ultra is the recommended choice at 65.8 FPS.
• 2560x1440: Medium is the best balance, hitting 72.1 FPS. High and Ultra settle at 59.0 and 52.9 FPS respectively — High is a borderline call.
• 3840x2160: Only Low clears the bar at 70.2 FPS. Medium is the closest below at 52.4 FPS, but it misses the 60 FPS mark.

The verdict is clear: this is a 1080p machine. At 1440p, you can still get a locked experience with Medium. 4K is not viable with this pairing.

Similar Alternatives

Based on the nearestRivals data, the CPU and GPU each have near-match alternatives that would land in the same performance envelope.

CPU: The Intel Core i9-11900, with an average benchmark score of 32,226, is just 0.2% behind the i5-14400F. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32,233, +0.1%) is effectively a sidegrade in CPU-bound tasks. In practice, the i9-11900 draws slightly more power (in the same socket class) and does not bring extra gaming headroom. The i5-14400F, with its 20 MB of L3 cache, is the right pick here.

The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32,354, 0.2% faster) is a mobile chip, but it would deliver similar CPU-bound performance in a system that can handle the platform change. The Intel Core i7-12800H at 32,121 is 0.5% slower — a negligible difference for simulation tasks.

GPU: The nearest rival showing similar results is the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666 avg, 0.2% slower than the RTX 4060). The Radeon 780M (17,588, +0.3%) and Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, +0.5%) are also in the same performance band. However, none of these GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4 to the same level as the RTX 4060, and their driver support for the 40-series feature set is not equivalent. The RTX 4060 remains the better pick for this game.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-14400F handle Microsoft Flight Simulator's world simulation at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the CPU is not the primary constraint. The RTX 4060 is. The measured data shows 70.2 FPS at Low, which is above the 60 FPS line. The CPU's 10 cores are enough for the simulation engine at 4K; the GPU's 272 GB/s bandwidth is what limits the higher presets.

Q: Is 60 FPS always needed for a flight simulator?

A: Flight Simulator is a slow-paced game without twitch shooter requirements. Many players find 45 FPS acceptable for non-VR flying. However, the data in this analysis uses 60 FPS as the playability line, and the Medium preset is the only one at 1440p that stays clearly above it.

Q: Does the RTX 4060's 24 RT cores matter at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the CPU is the bottleneck, not the GPU. The Ultra preset runs at 65.8 FPS, meaning the RT cores are not limiting. The i5-14400F's 4.7 GHz boost clock is the important single-threaded performance for this game's simulation engine.

Q: Can I use a lower-end CPU and a better GPU?

A: The data suggests this game needs both. At 1080p, CPU matters more. At 4K, GPU matters more. The i5-14400F + RTX 4060 is a balanced pairing. If you drop the CPU to a lower tier, the 1080p Ultra FPS will likely drop below 60. If you drop the GPU to a lesser card, the 1440p Medium preset would drop below 60.

Q: Is the RTX 4060's 8 GB VRAM enough for 4K?

A: The 4K data shows Low at 70.2 FPS with only the 8 GB frame buffer. The preset that is above the playable line (Medium, 52.4) is not GPU-VRAM-limited, but the GPU's compute does not keep up. So yes, 8 GB is enough for the Low preset, but not for higher presets.