Instant compatibility check with FPS benchmarks and optimization tips
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Performance
1080p (Full HD)
1440p (2K / QHD)
4K (Ultra HD)
Requirements Check
Recommendations
Your hardware doesn't meet minimum requirements for this game.
Your GPU supports ray tracing.
Average FPS: resolution vs quality settings
| Ultra | High | Medium | Low | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4K Ultra HD | 40 | 42 | 55 | 71 |
| 1440p QHD | 54 | 56 | 75 | 96 |
| 1080p Full HD | 66 | 70 | 93 | 119 |
Cell color: green is 120+ FPS, teal is 60+, amber is 30+, red is below 30. Cards marked Estimated above have no measured row and are scaled from your GPU benchmark percentile.
Performance Analysis: Microsoft Flight Simulator on Your System
Can Intel Core i7-14700F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Measured benchmark data says yes — with important qualifications at higher resolutions. Across twelve measured configurations (three resolutions, four presets each), the pairing clears the 60 FPS threshold in six of them, and the gap between 1080p Ultra and 4K Low illustrates exactly where this GPU runs out of headroom in one of the most demanding flight simulators ever shipped.
Measured FPS Breakdown
Starting at 1920x1080, the data shows a smooth staircase across every preset:
- Low: 119 FPS average
- Medium: 93 FPS average (79 min / 107 max)
- High: 70 FPS average
- Ultra: 66 FPS average
Even Ultra at 1080p stays above the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the Medium preset holds a minimum of 79 FPS with peaks at 107 — the only configuration in the dataset with min/max values recorded, giving the clearest picture of frame-time consistency. The spread from Ultra (66) to Low (119) at the same resolution is roughly a doubling of performance, which is significant headroom for a title this heavy.
At 2560x1440, the staircase compresses:
- Low: 96 FPS average
- Medium: 75 FPS average (64 min / 86 max)
- High: 56 FPS average
- Ultra: 54 FPS average
Medium remains the last preset above 60 FPS, and its minimum of 64 FPS confirms the threshold holds even in dips, not just on average. High and Ultra both fall short — 56 and 54 FPS respectively — landing in watchable-but-not-smooth territory.
At 3840x2160, the RTX 4060's limits become the story:
- Low: 71 FPS average
- Medium: 55 FPS average (47 min / 64 max)
- High: 42 FPS average
- Ultra: 40 FPS average
Only Low clears 60 FPS at 4K. Medium averages 55 with a minimum of 47, meaning dips sit well below the threshold. High and Ultra at 40–42 FPS average are firmly out of playable range for a flight simulator where smooth panning matters.
CPU and GPU Roles
The resolution scaling tells a clear story about which component is the bottleneck. Going from 1080p Ultra (66 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (54 FPS) is an 18% drop; from 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra (40 FPS) is a further 26% drop. Every step up in resolution cuts performance substantially — the classic signature of a GPU-bound game.
The preset scaling reinforces this. At any fixed resolution, dropping from Ultra to Low nearly doubles frame rates (66→119 at 1080p, 54→96 at 1440p, 40→71 at 4K). If the i7-14700F were the limiter, preset changes would move the numbers far less, because the CPU workload would stay constant while GPU load fell.
In short: the GPU is the constraint at every resolution tested. The i7-14700F — with 20 cores, 28 threads, a 5.40 GHz boost clock, and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 — sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs and is not the reason frames are lost at 4K. Its single-core strength (4958 in R23, 2429 in Geekbench) matters more in a simulator like this than raw thread count, and the data indicates it is supplying more than the RTX 4060 can consume. Upgrading the GPU while keeping this CPU would move the numbers; the reverse would not.
Similar Performance Alternatives
For the CPU, the nearest rivals by average benchmark score are essentially interchangeable: the Intel Xeon 6505P (avgScore 53701, deltaPct -0.2), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469, +0.3), AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288, +0.6), and AMD EPYC 7313P (53206, +0.8). All are within 1% of the i7-14700F's average score of 53620, so any of them would produce CPU-side behavior indistinguishable in this game. Since the game is GPU-bound, CPU substitutions in this range would change nothing measurable.
For the GPU, the RTX 4060 sits in the 61st percentile with an average score of 17639. Its listed nearest rivals — AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17666, -0.2), AMD Radeon 780M (17588, +0.3), AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17551, +0.5), and AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17509, +0.7) — fall within 1% of it on aggregate benchmark scores. Gamers wanting meaningfully higher frame rates in this title would need to move further up the GPU chart than these near-neighbors, because anything in this cluster will hit the same 4K wall.
How This Combo Ranks
Out of 3714 tested hardware combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 1978th. That places it almost exactly at the median — slightly below the halfway point. That ranking aligns with the composition of the build: a 91st-percentile CPU paired with a 61st-percentile GPU averages out to middle-of-the-pack in a game where the GPU sets the ceiling. The rank also contextualizes the FPS data: the combo isn't bottom-tier (4K Low at 71 FPS is respectable), but the 4K High/Ultra results show why half the tested field finishes ahead of it.
FAQ
Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p on Ultra?
A: Yes. The measured average at 1920x1080 Ultra is 66 FPS, above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Every preset at 1080p is playable, from Low (119 FPS) through Ultra.
Q: What is the best setting for 1440p?
A: Medium, at 75 FPS average with a 64 FPS minimum. High (56 FPS) and Ultra (54 FPS) both fall below 60 FPS at 2560x1440.
Q: Is 4K playable at all?
A: Only on Low, which averages 71 FPS. 4K Medium averages 55 FPS with dips to 47, and 4K High and Ultra average 42 and 40 FPS respectively.
Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the bottleneck?
A: The GPU. The i7-14700F ranks in the 91st percentile of CPUs, while the RTX 4060 ranks in the 61st percentile of GPUs, and the sharp frame-rate drops with each resolution increase confirm GPU-bound behavior.
Q: How consistent are the frame rates?
A: At 1440p Medium, the measured range is 64–86 FPS around a 75 FPS average — a tight spread. At 1080p Medium, the range is 79–107 around a 93 FPS average.
Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?
A: It ranks 1978 out of 3714 tested combinations — essentially the median for this game.
Best Settings per Resolution
Based on the measured data and the 60 FPS playable threshold:
- 1920x1080 — Ultra at 66 FPS. The most demanding preset in the game still clears the threshold, so there is no reason to step down at this resolution.
- 2560x1440 — Medium at 75 FPS. Medium is the highest preset above 60 FPS; its 64 FPS minimum confirms stability even in dips. The next step up, High, averages 56 FPS.
- 3840x2160 — Low at 71 FPS. Low is the only 4K preset that clears the bar. Medium falls short at 55 FPS average with a 47 FPS minimum.
The Verdict
Yes, this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator — the quality of the experience depends entirely on resolution. At 1920x1080, all four presets are playable, up to Ultra at 66 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low and Medium are playable, with Medium (75 FPS) the best option. At 3840x2160, only Low qualifies at 71 FPS. The data shows a GPU-limited configuration: the i7-14700F's 91st-percentile CPU performance is well matched on paper but underutilized by the 61st-percentile RTX 4060 in this title. For pilots targeting smooth 60-plus FPS, 1080p at any preset or 1440p at Medium are the configurations this hardware delivers.