Microsoft Flight Simulator

This analysis examines the recorded performance of the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data represents actual measured frame rates from our database, providing a clear picture of what this combination can deliver.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements for this combination show a consistent ability to exceed the 60 FPS playability threshold at every resolution and preset tested. The benchmark data includes average frame rates only, with no minimum or maximum values recorded for any configuration.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the performance envelope is surprisingly tight. Starting with Low settings, the combo produces an average of 107.5 FPS. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 95.9 FPS. High settings yield 79.9 FPS, while Ultra settles at 81.1 FPS. The most notable observation here is that Ultra actually performs slightly better than High, with a 1.2 FPS advantage. This suggests that the workload at 4K is not purely linear in its scaling, or that the specific scene rendering at Ultra had different characteristics than at High. The spread from the most demanding setting to the least is 27.6 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results scale more predictably. Low settings deliver 119.7 FPS average. Medium produces 108.9 FPS, a reduction of 10.8 FPS from Low. High settings yield 95.7 FPS, and Ultra achieves 97.8 FPS. Again, Ultra slightly outperforms High, this time by 2.1 FPS. The overall range between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the combo reaches its highest frame rates. Low settings measured an average of 130.9 FPS. Medium follows at 117.2 FPS, a 13.7 FPS drop. High produces 108 FPS, and Ultra rounds out the results at 107 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 23.9 FPS, showing that even the most extreme settings drop only marginally compared to the lowest preset.

The data shows that this pairing is never constrained by the 60 FPS playability threshold, even at the most demanding 4K Ultra setting where it maintains an average of 81.1 FPS. The margin is substantial at 1080p, where even Ultra stays 47 FPS above the playability line.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database records neighboring hardware based on average benchmark scores. For the Intel Core i5-9400, the closest matching CPUs are a tight cluster. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 0.2% lower, making it a near-identical match for the CPU-bound portions of the workload. The Intel Core i3-10305 sits 0.4% lower in average score, meaning it would likely behave nearly the same in this game. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is 0.4% higher in score, so it is effectively indistinguishable in CPU-bound scenes. Finally, the Intel Core i7-10710U is just 0.3% ahead. The data indicates that all four of these CPUs would produce very similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, provided the GPU and memory configuration remain constant.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are a surprising set. The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB scores 0.3% higher in the aggregate database, meaning it likely delivers almost identical rasterization performance in this title. The Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB version is 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT, a mobile-class part, comes in 1.1% behind the RTX 5090, so it would trail by a small but noticeable margin. On the other end, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is 1.4% lower, making it the closest slower alternative. Because the delta is small, a system with one of these GPUs would produce frame rates within a few percentage points of the measured RTX 5090 numbers, assuming the same CPU and game settings.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of 3,714 tested CPU and GPU combinations, this pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves rank 659 for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 17.8% of all tested combinations. The ranking reflects that while the RTX 5090 is a high-end graphics card in the top 92nd percentile of all GPUs, the core i5-9400 sits at the 47th percentile of all CPUs. The 6-core, 6-thread processor is an older design, and the data shows that despite the very fast graphics card, the combo still ranks far behind the best systems. There are 3,055 combinations that rank better, which indicates that most high-end gaming systems with newer CPUs would outperform this specific pairing.

The rank of 659 is driven by the CPU's limited single-thread and multi-thread capabilities. While the GPU can render frames quickly, the processor must feed it, and its benchmark scores are modest. The CPU average benchmark score is 2,254, while the GPU average is 79,842. The ranking data suggests that the RTX 5090 is working in a system that is not fully extracting its potential.

FAQ

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

Yes. The measured average at 3840x2160 Ultra is 81.1 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Ultra is listed as a playable setting at this resolution.

Q: What is the best preset for the highest FPS at 1080p?

The Low preset yields the highest average FPS at 1920x1080, reaching 130.9 FPS. However, Ultra still yields 107 FPS, so it is also a playable setting.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 is 0.2% slower, the Intel Core i3-10305 is 0.4% slower, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is 0.4% faster, and the Intel Core i7-10710U is 0.3% faster. These CPUs would all produce very similar frame rates in this game.

Q: What is the frame rate range across all settings at 1440p?

At 2560x1440, the average FPS ranges from 119.7 on Low to 97.8 on Ultra. The range is 21.9 FPS between the lowest and highest presets.

Q: Is the RTX 5090 the only GPU that performs like this in the database?

No: The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB scores 0.3% higher in the average benchmark, making it a close alternative. The AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT is 1.1% slower, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is 1.4% slower.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra?

The 1920x1080 Ultra preset achieves 107 FPS, while the 3840x2160 Ultra preset achieves 81.1 FPS. The higher resolution costs a 25.9 FPS reduction in average frame rate.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear shift in bottleneck behavior as resolution changes. At 1920x1080, the average FPS for Ultra is 107, which is 25.9 FPS higher than the 4K Ultra result. This 1080p result is likely limited by the CPU because it cannot push frames fast enough to feed the RTX 5090. The CPU's single-core benchmark score of 935 in Cinebench R23 is a modest figure, and at lower resolutions, the game relies heavily on the processor to prepare frames.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra average is 97.8 FPS. This is only 9.2 FPS lower than 1080p Ultra, which shows that the GPU is still able to handle the increased pixel count without a large performance penalty. The GPU has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory, and its bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s, so it is not a constraint.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra average is 81.1 FPS. This is 16.7 FPS lower than at 1440p, which is a more significant drop. This is the GPU starting to become the limiting factor. The RTX 5090 is still powerful, but the 4K resolution requires more pixel processing. The comparison between Low presets shows a similar pattern: 130.9 FPS at 1080p Low, 119.7 FPS at 1440p Low, and 107.5 FPS at 4K Low.

The scaling between presets also shows the CPU's influence. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 27.6 FPS, while at 1080p it is 23.9 FPS. This indicates that the CPU has a more significant role at lower resolutions, as it needs to keep up with the higher frame rates. At 4K, the GPU is the dominant factor, but the CPU is still able to sustain the game above 80 FPS.

The verdicts in the data list all settings as playable at all resolutions, which is a sign that the GPU is powerful enough to make the CPU the primary limiting factor, but even then, it is not a hard limit.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is the Ultra preset.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra setting delivers an average of 81.1 FPS. This is above the playability threshold, and the database records all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) as playable. The Ultra preset is the best choice because it provides the highest visual quality without dropping below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset gives a 97.8 FPS average. All settings are playable, but Ultra is the recommended pick because it offers the maximum visual fidelity while still maintaining a large margin above the 60 FPS line.

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset achieves 107 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset is also the fastest of the high presets, since it actually exceeds High by 1 FPS. The data indicates that Ultra is the best setting for this resolution, with no playability concerns.

In all cases, the system is never a 60 FPS risk. The lowest recorded average is 81.1 FPS, which occurs at 4K Ultra. Therefore, the optimal way to run this game on this hardware is to use the Ultra preset at any resolution, as it guarantees a smooth experience.