Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination covers three resolutions and four quality presets, with average frame rates forming the core of the analysis. Minimum and maximum figures were captured only for the Medium preset at each resolution, so the broader comparison relies on averages.

At 3840x2160, the combo delivers an average of 108 FPS on Low settings. Moving to Medium drops the average to 97 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 83 FPS and a maximum of 112 FPS. High settings produce an average of 73 FPS, while Ultra settles at 70 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 38 FPS, which is a substantial gap and indicates that the GPU is doing most of the heavy lifting at this resolution, but the CPU still has enough headroom to keep frame rates playable across all presets.

At 2560x1440, the averages are consistently higher. Low settings reach 119 FPS, Medium averages 109 FPS with a minimum of 92 FPS and a maximum of 125 FPS, High averages 98 FPS, and Ultra averages 95 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra here is 24 FPS, noticeably smaller than at 4K. This tighter spread suggests that as resolution drops, the CPU begins to impose a more noticeable ceiling on performance, though the averages remain well above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 1920x1080, the pattern continues. Low settings average 128 FPS, Medium averages 117 FPS with a minimum of 99 FPS and a maximum of 134 FPS, High averages 105 FPS, and Ultra averages 104 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is just 24 FPS, identical in absolute terms to the 1440p spread. The highest recorded average across the entire dataset is 128 FPS at 1080p Low, while the lowest playable average is 70 FPS at 4K Ultra.

One notable observation is that the Medium preset consistently has the most complete data, with min and max figures recorded at every resolution. The minimum frames at Medium are 83 FPS at 4K, 92 FPS at 1440p, and 99 FPS at 1080p. These minimums are all comfortably above the 60 FPS playable threshold, which indicates that even in demanding scenes, this combo avoids severe frame drops at Medium settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database's verdict identifies the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS for each resolution. At 3840x2160, the best settings are Ultra, which runs at an average of 70 FPS. This is a strong result for a flight simulator at 4K, as Ultra typically represents the maximum visual fidelity available. The fact that even the most demanding preset clears the 60 FPS bar at 4K means that users can run the game at full quality without compromise.

At 2560x1440, the best settings are also Ultra, with an average of 95 FPS. This provides a substantial cushion above the 60 FPS threshold, making it an excellent choice for high-refresh-rate displays. The 25 FPS difference between 4K Ultra and 1440p Ultra shows how much headroom exists when dropping one resolution step.

At 1920x1080, Ultra remains the best setting, averaging 104 FPS. This is the highest frame rate available at the most demanding preset across all three resolutions. For users with 1080p monitors, the combo delivers near-ideal performance, as even the heaviest settings leave plenty of margin for smooth gameplay.

Across all resolutions, the playable settings list includes High, Low, Medium, and Ultra, meaning there is no preset at any resolution that falls below 60 FPS. This is an unusual outcome, as many combinations struggle at 4K Ultra in demanding titles. The data shows that this particular pairing is not bound by the GPU at 1080p or 1440p, and only begins to feel pressure at 4K Ultra, where the average still sits at 70 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

Determining which component matters more requires examining how frame rates scale with resolution and preset changes. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-9400, is a six-core, six-thread part with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. Its benchmark scores place it in the 47th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2254. The GPU, an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, sits in the 86th percentile among GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54247. This percentile gap is the first clue that the GPU is the dominant component in this pairing.

The resolution scaling data supports this. From 1080p Ultra (104 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (95 FPS), the drop is 9 FPS, or about 8.7 percent. From 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra (70 FPS), the drop is 25 FPS, or about 26.3 percent. The larger drop at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is being pushed harder as pixel count increases, which is expected. However, the fact that 1080p and 1440p averages are so close (104 vs 95 at Ultra) suggests that the CPU is starting to limit performance at lower resolutions. If the GPU were the sole bottleneck, the 1080p score would be much higher than the 1440p score, since the pixel load is roughly halved.

The preset scaling tells a similar story. At 4K, the difference between Low (108 FPS) and Ultra (70 FPS) is 38 FPS. At 1440p, the same comparison yields 24 FPS. At 1080p, it is also 24 FPS. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, the preset scaling would shrink as resolution decreases, because the CPU workload (draw calls, physics, simulation logic) is relatively constant regardless of resolution. The fact that the Low-to-Ultra gap remains at 24 FPS for both 1440p and 1080p suggests that the CPU is indeed capping the upper bound of performance at those resolutions. The GPU has more to give, but the i5-9400 cannot feed it fast enough.

In practical terms, this means that for 4K gaming, the RTX 4080 is the limiting factor, and users should focus on GPU settings. For 1080p and 1440p gaming, the i5-9400 is the more relevant constraint, and upgrading the CPU would yield larger gains than tweaking GPU settings. The data shows that at 1080p, even the Low preset only reaches 128 FPS, which is well below what the RTX 4080 could deliver with a stronger processor. This is a classic case of a high-end GPU paired with a mid-range CPU: the combo excels at high resolutions but leaves performance on the table at lower ones.

How This Combo Ranks

The database records this combination as rank 776 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 20.9 percent of all combinations, which is a strong showing given that the CPU is a mid-range part from 2018. The percentile rankings of the individual components help contextualize this result: the CPU sits at the 47th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 86th percentile. The combo rank of 776 out of 3714 is closer to the GPU's percentile than the CPU's, which reinforces the conclusion that the GPU is driving overall performance for this game.

A rank of 776 means there are 775 combinations that perform better, and 2938 that perform worse. Given that many of the higher-ranked combos likely pair the RTX 4080 with a newer, faster CPU, achieving a top-quintile rank with a six-thread Coffee Lake processor is noteworthy. It indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily GPU-bound at the settings tested, or that the i5-9400 provides just enough CPU performance to avoid becoming a severe bottleneck.

The rank also implies that the i5-9400 is not holding the RTX 4080 back to a crippling degree. If the CPU were a major limiting factor, the combo rank would be much lower, perhaps in the bottom half of the list. Instead, the data shows that this pairing is more than capable of delivering playable frame rates at every resolution and preset combination tested.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide a sense of what other hardware would behave similarly in this game. For the Intel Core i5-9400, the closest alternatives by average benchmark score are the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (0.2 percent slower), the Intel Core i7-10710U (0.3 percent faster), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 (0.4 percent faster), and the Intel Core i3-10305 (0.4 percent slower). All of these CPUs have average scores within a fraction of a percent of the i5-9400's 2254, so swapping to any of them would produce nearly identical frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios. None of these parts would meaningfully change the combo's performance at 1080p or 1440p, where the CPU is the limiting factor.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, the nearest rivals are the RTX 4080 SUPER (0.1 percent faster), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (1.1 percent slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (2.6 percent slower), and the AMD Radeon 8060S (2.7 percent slower). The RTX 4080 SUPER is essentially identical in performance, so users with that card would see the same frame rates within measurement error. The AMD options are slightly slower, but the deltas are small enough that the playable settings and best settings at each resolution would remain unchanged. In practical terms, any of these GPUs paired with the i5-9400 would produce very similar results to the measured data.

It is importantly these rival comparisons are based on average benchmark scores across multiple tests, not specifically on Microsoft Flight Simulator performance. However, given the small deltas involved (all under 3 percent), the in-game differences would be minimal. A user with an RTX 4080 SUPER would likely see 1 to 2 FPS difference at most, while a user with the RX 6750 GRE might see 2 to 3 FPS less, still well above the 60 FPS threshold in most scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The recorded data shows an average of 70 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, which exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: Ultra settings are the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, averaging 95 FPS at 2560x1440.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bigger bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The CPU is the primary limiting factor at 1920x1080. The frame rate difference between Low (128 FPS) and Ultra (104 FPS) is only 24 FPS, and the average at Ultra is 104 FPS, which is far below what the RTX 4080 could achieve with a stronger processor.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 776 out of 3714 combinations, placing it in the top 20.9 percent of all tested systems for this game.

Q: What GPU would perform nearly identically to the RTX 4080 in this pairing?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER is the closest rival, with an average benchmark score only 0.1 percent higher. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is 1.1 percent slower, and the Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB is 2.6 percent slower.

Q: Are there any settings where this combo drops below 60 FPS?

A: No. All four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at all three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K) maintain averages above 60 FPS. The lowest recorded average is 70 FPS at 4K Ultra, and the lowest recorded minimum is 83 FPS at 4K Medium.