Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 combination sits at rank 2971 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this pairing in the lower third of the database, which is not surprising given the game's heavy demands on both CPU and GPU. The CPU itself ranks at the 47th percentile among all tested processors, while the GPU sits at the 58th percentile among all graphics cards. This means the GPU is the stronger half of the pairing, but neither component is a standout performer in the broader landscape.

What this rank translates to in practice is a system that can run the game, but with clear limitations. The data shows that at 1920x1080, the combo manages playable frame rates at Low and Medium presets, but falls short at High and Ultra. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. So while this is a functional machine for Flight Simulator, it is not a high-end experience. The rank reflects that reality: it is a mid-pack result for a game that pushes hardware hard.

The CPU's benchmark scores also matter here. The i5-9400 posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6629 and a single-core score of 935. The relatively modest multi-core result suggests that the six-core, six-thread processor can handle the simulation's background tasks, but it is not a heavy hitter. The combo rank of 2971 out of 3714 means that roughly 743 tested combos performed worse, leaving the vast majority ahead. That context is useful for builders deciding whether this old pairing is worth deploying for this specific title.

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data provides clear guidance for each resolution. At 1920x1080, the best preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average frame rate of 69.1 FPS. That is the highest quality setting that maintains playable performance at this resolution. Low runs at 92.3 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual experience while still clearing the threshold comfortably.

At 2560x1440, the situation tightens. The best playable preset is Low, which delivers an average of 73.2 FPS. Medium drops to 54.5 FPS, which falls short of the 60 FPS target. High runs at 45.6 FPS, and Ultra at 41.6 FPS. So at 1440p, the recommendation is firmly Low, and there is no room for negotiation if the goal is smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the data shows no playable settings. The best result among the tested presets is Low at 50.8 FPS, which still misses the 60 FPS bar. Medium runs at 39.9 FPS, High at 29.3 FPS, and Ultra at 31.3 FPS. The verdict for 4K is clear: this combo cannot sustain 60 FPS at any preset. For users with a 4K display, the practical path is to run at a lower resolution or accept sub-60 performance.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a shifting balance between CPU and GPU depending on resolution and preset. At lower resolutions, the CPU has more influence because the GPU is not as heavily taxed. The 1920x1080 results show a wide spread across presets: Low runs at 92.3 FPS, Medium at 69.1 FPS, High at 52.8 FPS, and Ultra at 53.5 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a 23.2 FPS drop, which is substantial. This suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is the primary constraint as settings increase, but the CPU still holds its own at the lower presets.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with narrower margins. Low runs at 73.2 FPS, Medium at 54.5 FPS, High at 45.6 FPS, and Ultra at 41.6 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 18.7 FPS, and from Medium to High is 8.9 FPS. This indicates that the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution increases, since the gap between presets shrinks. The CPU is less of a factor at 1440p compared to 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The frame rates are tightly clustered: Low at 50.8 FPS, Medium at 39.9 FPS, High at 29.3 FPS, and Ultra at 31.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 10.9 FPS, and between Medium and High is 10.6 FPS. At this resolution, the RTX 2060's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus are simply not enough to feed the pixel count. The CPU matters less here, as the GPU is saturated.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. At Low settings, the drop from 1920x1080 (92.3 FPS) to 2560x1440 (73.2 FPS) is 19.1 FPS, and from 1440p to 2160p (50.8 FPS) is another 22.4 FPS. This is a steady decline driven by pixel count. At Medium settings, the drop from 1080p (69.1 FPS) to 1440p (54.5 FPS) is 14.6 FPS, and from 1440p to 2160p (39.9 FPS) is another 14.6 FPS. The consistent scaling points to GPU-bound behavior across the board, with the CPU providing enough headroom to avoid being the bottleneck.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i5-9400, the nearest rivals in the database are a tight cluster. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 posts an average score of 2259, which is 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, 0.4% higher. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical performance in Flight Simulator. The i5-9400's own average benchmark score is 2254, placing it squarely in the middle of this group.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, the nearest rivals are similarly close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 has an average score of 15283, a delta of 0.0%. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, 0.6% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, 0.8% higher. The RTX 2060's average score is 15290, so any of these cards would behave almost identically in this game. The practical takeaway is that swapping the CPU or GPU for one of these near-equal alternatives would not change the measured FPS in any meaningful way.

This is useful for builders who already own one of these parts. If a system has an i7-10710U or an RX 7600, the expected performance in Flight Simulator would match the numbers shown here within a rounding error. The data does not support any of these alternatives being a significant upgrade or downgrade.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full set of results shows a clear hierarchy. Low settings produce an average of 92.3 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this combo at any resolution. Medium drops to 69.1 FPS, still above the 60 FPS threshold. High runs at 52.8 FPS, and Ultra at 53.5 FPS. Notably, High and Ultra are nearly identical, with Ultra actually edging out High by 0.7 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional effects do not impose a significant extra cost over High at this resolution, likely due to the GPU being the limiting factor rather than the CPU.

At 2560x1440, the results are more compressed. Low averages 73.2 FPS, Medium 54.5 FPS, High 45.6 FPS, and Ultra 41.6 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 31.6 FPS, compared to 38.8 FPS at 1080p. This compression is expected as resolution increases, since the GPU becomes the dominant constraint and the relative cost of each preset diminishes.

At 3840x2160, the numbers are the lowest in the dataset. Low averages 50.8 FPS, Medium 39.9 FPS, High 29.3 FPS, and Ultra 31.3 FPS. Again, High and Ultra are close, with Ultra 2.0 FPS ahead of High. This pattern repeats across resolutions, confirming that the Ultra preset is not a dramatically heavier load than High for this particular game and hardware combination. The min and max FPS values were not recorded, so the analysis relies on average frame rates only.

The overall shape of the data is consistent: each resolution step down in quality yields a meaningful FPS gain, and each resolution step up in pixel count yields a meaningful FPS loss. There are no anomalies or unexpected spikes in the measured results.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous. At 1920x1080, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with the best playable preset being Medium at 69.1 FPS. That clears the 60 FPS threshold with a comfortable margin. High and Ultra fall short at 52.8 FPS and 53.5 FPS respectively, so those presets are not viable for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the only playable setting is Low at 73.2 FPS. Medium at 54.5 FPS, High at 45.6 FPS, and Ultra at 41.6 FPS all miss the mark. The recommendation is to run at Low if 1440p is the target resolution. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The best result is Low at 50.8 FPS, which still falls below 60 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all perform worse.

The practical verdict for a builder or owner of this combo is straightforward. At 1080p, Medium settings deliver a solid experience. At 1440p, Low settings are the only option for 60 FPS. At 4K, this system is not suitable for the game at any preset. The GPU's 6 GB memory and the CPU's six threads are both contributing factors, but the measured data shows the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. For anyone planning to play this game on this hardware, sticking to 1080p with Medium settings is the sweet spot. Pushing beyond that requires a resolution drop or a hardware upgrade.