Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-9400 sits in a tight performance cluster based on the database's averaged benchmark scores. Its average score of 2254 places it within 0.4% of several competing processors. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, putting it 0.4% behind the i5-9400, while the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, just 0.3% behind. On the other side, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259, a 0.2% advantage, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, leading by 0.4%. In practical terms, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in this simulator, and swapping between them would not meaningfully shift the measured FPS results.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER similarly lands in a dense performance tier. Its average benchmark score of 18093 is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile at 18159, a 0.4% gap, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18189, a 0.5% gap. The AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 18373, 1.5% higher, and the Intel Arc A770M leads this group at 18383, 1.6% higher. The RTX 2060 SUPER also sits at the 62nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms a majority of recorded graphics cards. For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, this GPU is the dominant factor in the measured results, so users considering alternatives in this performance band should expect similar FPS at equivalent settings.

The CPU's 47th percentile ranking places it below the GPU's 62nd percentile, which foreshadows a system where the graphics card does most of the heavy lifting at higher resolutions, while the processor becomes more relevant only when settings are lowered and frame rates climb.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with Medium settings?

A: Yes. The recorded average FPS is 79.3, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold with a comfortable margin. Medium is the best playable preset at this resolution.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 2560x1440?

A: Medium is the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. The measured average is 65.4 FPS. Low also qualifies at 80.9 FPS, but Medium offers the best visual quality within the playable range.

Q: Is 4K resolution playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 55.8 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium produces 48.7 FPS, High drops to 32.9 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 31.7 FPS. No preset at this resolution is playable.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER's average benchmark score is 18093. The RTX 3060 Mobile is 0.4% faster, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is 0.5% faster, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 and Intel Arc A770M are 1.5% and 1.6% faster respectively. These differences are minor and would translate to only a few FPS in practice.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1920x1080?

A: Low settings run at 99.1 FPS average, while Ultra runs at 58.8 FPS. That is a drop of roughly 40 FPS, and notably Ultra falls just below the 60 FPS playable threshold despite being only slightly slower than High, which records 59.7 FPS.

Q: Where does this system rank among tested hardware combinations?

A: The combination ranks 2648 out of 3714 tested configurations in the database for this game, placing it in the lower half of all recorded systems.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 99.1 FPS average, Medium reaches 79.3 FPS, High drops to 59.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 58.8 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is small, only 0.9 FPS, which suggests the Ultra preset adds visual features that cost performance without a proportional frame rate penalty. The jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 20 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 19.6 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts downward. Low settings average 80.9 FPS, which is still comfortably above the playable threshold. Medium averages 65.4 FPS, maintaining playability. High drops to 47.0 FPS, and Ultra falls further to 42.8 FPS. The delta between Medium and High is 18.4 FPS, a substantial penalty for one settings tier. Between High and Ultra, the additional cost is 4.2 FPS, smaller than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets reach the 60 FPS threshold. Low averages 55.8 FPS, Medium 48.7 FPS, High 32.9 FPS, and Ultra 31.7 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 7.1 FPS, but the difference between Medium and High is a steep 15.8 FPS. High and Ultra are nearly identical, separated by only 1.2 FPS, indicating that at 4K the GPU is saturated and the extra Ultra settings barely change the output.

The data shows no recorded minimum or maximum FPS values, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. All measurements come from the database's own testing, not vendor claims.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates, but only at specific resolutions and presets. The verdict by resolution is clear.

At 1920x1080, the playable settings are Low and Medium. Medium is the best choice, averaging 79.3 FPS. Low runs at 99.1 FPS. High and Ultra both fall short of the 60 FPS threshold, with High at 59.7 FPS and Ultra at 58.8 FPS. The margin is thin, but neither preset qualifies as playable by the database's standard.

At 2560x1440, Low and Medium are also the playable options. Medium averages 65.4 FPS, which clears the threshold by 5.4 FPS. Low runs at 80.9 FPS. High at 47.0 FPS and Ultra at 42.8 FPS are both below playable.

At 3840x2160, no preset is playable. The closest is Low at 55.8 FPS, which misses the threshold by 4.2 FPS. Users targeting 4K would need to accept sub-60 performance or reduce the resolution.

The overall ranking of 2648 out of 3714 combinations confirms that this hardware is functional for the game but not a high-end match. It is a solid 1080p and entry-level 1440p setup for this title, with no path to 4K playability at the tested presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core i5-9400 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER. The GPU's percentile ranking of 62 is substantially higher than the CPU's 47, and the frame rate scaling across resolutions confirms that the graphics card is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is heavily strained. The difference between Low and Medium is 7.1 FPS, and between Medium and High it is 15.8 FPS. The small gap between High and Ultra, only 1.2 FPS, indicates that the GPU is fully saturated and additional settings have diminishing returns. At this resolution, the CPU has little influence on the outcome, as the GPU cannot produce enough frames to let the processor become a bottleneck.

At 2560x1440, the GPU still dominates. The spread from Low to Ultra is 38.1 FPS, with each settings tier costing measurable performance. The CPU's role grows slightly compared to 4K, but the GPU remains the primary constraint.

At 1920x1080, the balance shifts. The frame rates are high enough that the CPU begins to matter more, particularly at Low settings where the GPU is less burdened. The difference between Low and Medium is 19.8 FPS, and between Medium and High it is 19.6 FPS, showing that the GPU still drives most of the scaling. However, the fact that High and Ultra are nearly identical, 59.7 versus 58.8 FPS, suggests that at 1080p the CPU may be starting to limit the maximum achievable frame rate. The i5-9400's six cores and six threads, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, provide enough single-thread performance for moderate settings, but the narrow gap between High and Ultra hints at a CPU ceiling around 60 FPS.

The practical takeaway is straightforward: for this game, the RTX 2060 SUPER is the component to upgrade first if higher resolutions or presets are desired. The i5-9400 is adequate for 1080p and 1440p playable settings but would not unlock significantly higher frame rates at those resolutions if paired with a faster GPU.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is Medium, with a measured average of 79.3 FPS. This is the highest settings tier that stays at or above the 60 FPS threshold while leaving enough headroom for variable scenes. Low runs faster at 99.1 FPS but sacrifices visual quality, and High at 59.7 FPS and Ultra at 58.8 FPS both miss the threshold by a small margin.

At 2560x1440, Medium is again the best playable preset, averaging 65.4 FPS. This clears the threshold by 5.4 FPS, which is a narrower margin than at 1080p but still playable. Low at 80.9 FPS is an option for users who prefer smoother frame rates, but Medium provides the better visual experience within the playable range.

At 3840x2160, there is no best settings preset because no configuration reaches 60 FPS. The closest option is Low at 55.8 FPS, but it does not meet the playable standard. Users at 4K would need to lower the resolution or accept frame rates below the threshold.

For users who want to push visual quality while maintaining playability, the data suggests staying on Medium at both 1080p and 1440p. The jump to High costs more than 14 FPS at 1440p and 19.6 FPS at 1080p, which is a steep price for the visual uplift. Medium represents the balance point where the RTX 2060 SUPER and i5-9400 work together without either component becoming a hard limit.