Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning roughly half of all recorded processors deliver higher average scores. Its average benchmark score of 2254 places it in a tightly clustered group of comparable chips. The nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 with an average score of 2259, a mere 0.2% difference. The Intel Core i7-10710U trails by 0.3% at 2248, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 sits 0.4% behind at 2246. The Intel Core i3-10305 leads this group slightly at 2264, which is 0.4% ahead of the i5-9400. In practical terms, any of these four processors would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with differences well within measurement noise.

On the graphics side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 achieves an 81st percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37648. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37628, a delta of just 0.1%. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37507, 0.4% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile leads by 1.3% at 38135, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 trails by 1.3% at 37157. The data shows the RTX 4070 sits in a performance band where the nearest alternatives are a mix of professional and mobile parts, but all deliver essentially equivalent raw compute results. Gamers considering this GPU in a flight simulation context should expect the same frame rates from any of these near-identical rivals.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured frame rates reveal how the balance shifts between processor and graphics card as resolution changes. At 1920x1080, the gap between Low and Ultra settings spans from 128.9 FPS down to 93.6 FPS, a range of 35.3 FPS. The GPU is clearly the limiting factor at this resolution, as the CPU has enough headroom to feed the graphics card across all presets. The Medium preset delivers 115.9 FPS, while High drops to 94.5 FPS, showing a steepening curve as graphical load increases.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with compressed numbers. Low settings produce 119 FPS, Medium reaches 100.5 FPS, High manages 79.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 75.8 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 43.2 FPS, wider than at 1080p, which indicates the GPU is working progressively harder while the CPU contribution remains constant.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes overwhelmingly dominant. Low settings yield 95 FPS, Medium drops to 73.1 FPS, High falls to 54.1 FPS, and Ultra reaches only 51.3 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 43.7 FPS, the largest of any resolution. The data indicates the RTX 4070 is the primary bottleneck at 4K, while the i5-9400 has sufficient single-thread performance to keep up even at the highest preset. The CPU's role is most visible at 1080p where frame rates exceed 120 FPS, but even then the graphics card still determines the ceiling. The database shows this combination behaves as a GPU-bound system at every resolution tested, with the CPU never becoming the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 ranks 1134 out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the top 30% of all recorded system pairings, a strong showing for a mid-generation processor matched with a current-generation GPU. The rank reflects the fact that the RTX 4070's graphics horsepower dominates the overall result, while the i5-9400's modest CPU score prevents the combo from climbing higher.

The ranking also illustrates that Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily graphics-dependent in this configuration. Systems ranked above this combo likely pair the RTX 4070 with faster processors, which would help in CPU-heavy moments such as dense urban areas or complex weather simulations. However, the gap between this combo and the top of the database is primarily driven by CPU capability rather than GPU differences. The 47th percentile CPU ranking holds the combo back from the upper echelons, while the 81st percentile GPU pushes it well past the median. The recorded data shows a balanced system where the GPU outperforms the CPU in relative terms, but the combination still lands in the upper third of all tested pairings.

The Verdict

The recorded data confirms this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates across most configurations. At 1920x1080, every preset exceeds the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings produce 128.9 FPS, Medium reaches 115.9 FPS, High delivers 94.5 FPS, and Ultra maintains 93.6 FPS. The best playable setting at this resolution is Ultra, with an average of 93.6 FPS.

At 2560x1440, all four presets also clear 60 FPS. Low runs at 119 FPS, Medium at 100.5 FPS, High at 79.5 FPS, and Ultra at 75.8 FPS. The best setting remains Ultra, which holds an average of 75.8 FPS, comfortably above the threshold.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes. Low and Medium presets are playable at 95 FPS and 73.1 FPS respectively. High falls to 54.1 FPS, and Ultra drops to 51.3 FPS, both below the 60 FPS threshold. The best playable setting at 4K is Medium, with an average of 73.1 FPS. The verdict by resolution is clear: this system handles 1080p and 1440p at maximum settings, while 4K requires dropping to Medium for a smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains 12 measured data points for this combination, spanning three resolutions and four settings presets. All figures represent average frame rates, as minimum and maximum values were not recorded.

At 3840x2160, the performance curve starts at 95 FPS on Low settings. Medium settings reduce this to 73.1 FPS, a 23% drop. High settings further reduce the average to 54.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 51.3 FPS. The step from Medium to High is the largest single drop, a loss of 19 FPS, indicating a particularly demanding graphical feature activated between these presets.

At 2560x1440, Low settings achieve 119 FPS. Medium settings drop to 100.5 FPS, High to 79.5 FPS, and Ultra to 75.8 FPS. The scaling here is more gradual than at 4K, with each preset step costing between 3.7 and 21 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 3.7 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset.

At 1920x1080, Low settings reach 128.9 FPS. Medium drops to 115.9 FPS, High to 94.5 FPS, and Ultra to 93.6 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is less than 1 FPS, indicating the Ultra preset adds minimal graphical load at 1080p. The data shows the RTX 4070 has ample headroom at this resolution, with even the most demanding preset staying above 90 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains at least 60 FPS is Ultra, which achieves an average of 93.6 FPS. This represents the maximum visual quality available while still providing a comfortable margin above the playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, Ultra is again the best choice, with an average of 75.8 FPS. This provides the full visual experience with over 15 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows this resolution is the sweet spot for this combination, offering high fidelity without compromising smoothness.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding playable preset is Medium, delivering 73.1 FPS on average. High settings fall short of the threshold at 54.1 FPS, so users seeking 4K must accept Medium quality. The 19 FPS gap between Medium and High at this resolution means there is no middle ground: either accept Medium at 73.1 FPS or drop below 60 FPS with High settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with maximum settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 51.3 FPS, below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The best playable 4K preset is Medium at 73.1 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 both support Ultra settings at playable frame rates. At 1440p Ultra, the average is 75.8 FPS, while 1080p Ultra runs at 93.6 FPS.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The RTX 4070 has an average benchmark score of 37648. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 is 0.1% slower, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 is 0.4% slower, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is 1.3% faster, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is 1.3% slower.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-9400 averages 2254 in benchmark scores. The Intel Core i3-10305 is 0.4% faster, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 is 0.2% faster, the Intel Core i7-10710U is 0.3% slower, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is 0.4% slower.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1440p with High settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average frame rate is 79.5 FPS, well above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important in this configuration?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution. The RTX 4070 ranks in the 81st percentile among GPUs, while the i5-9400 ranks in the 47th percentile among CPUs, yet frame rates still scale consistently with resolution and settings, indicating GPU-bound performance throughout.