Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 delivers a consistently smooth experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with every tested setting at every resolution clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold. The data indicates that this combination is not merely adequate but offers substantial headroom, allowing users to prioritize visual fidelity without sacrificing frame rate stability.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160 (4K), the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS is Ultra, which achieves an average of 70 FPS. This is a notable result, as it means the full visual feature set is available at 4K resolution without dropping below the playable threshold. The High preset provides a small performance buffer at 73 FPS, but Ultra is clearly the recommended choice for maximum image quality.

For 2560x1440 (1440p), the Ultra preset again stands as the best option, delivering an average of 95 FPS. This represents a significant margin above the 60 FPS floor, indicating that the system has ample performance reserves. The gap between Ultra and High (99 FPS) is minimal, so selecting Ultra incurs almost no performance penalty while providing the highest level of detail.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the Ultra preset is the clear winner with an average of 117 FPS. This is more than double the playability threshold, suggesting that the CPU and GPU combination is far from being stressed at this resolution. Users with high refresh rate monitors will find this setup capable of fully utilizing their display, as the system easily maintains frame rates well above 100 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings is 70 FPS, which exceeds the 60 FPS playability threshold. The verdict for this resolution lists all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) as playable.

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

A: At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average FPS is 117. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS drops to 70. This represents a 47 FPS reduction (approximately 40%) when moving from 1080p to 4K, highlighting the significant GPU load increase at higher resolutions.

Q: Are there any settings at any resolution that fail to reach 60 FPS?

A: No. Across all three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), every average FPS value is above 60. The lowest recorded average is 70 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark score compare to similar processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620 and sits in the 91st percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6505P, scores 53701, which is only 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, putting it 0.6% below the i7-14700F.

Q: Is the RTX 4080's performance close to that of the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The data shows they are nearly identical. The RTX 4080 has an average benchmark score of 54247, while the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54209. The delta is just 0.1%, meaning the SUPER variant is effectively the same in terms of average performance.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this system?

A: The highest average FPS is 211, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 170 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, and 164 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K): The data shows a clear scaling pattern across presets. At Low settings, the average FPS is 125. Medium settings produce an average of 97 FPS, with a minimum of 83 and a maximum of 112 FPS. High settings yield 73 FPS on average. Ultra settings bring the average down to 70 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 55 FPS drop, with the most significant single-step decrease occurring between Low and Medium (28 FPS).

2560x1440 (1440p): Low settings deliver an average of 170 FPS. Medium settings average 132 FPS, with a minimum of 112 and a maximum of 152 FPS. High settings produce 99 FPS on average. Ultra settings average 95 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 4 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the final preset tier at this resolution.

1920x1080 (1080p): Low settings reach an average of 211 FPS. Medium settings average 164 FPS, with a minimum of 139 and a maximum of 188 FPS. High settings yield 123 FPS on average. Ultra settings deliver 117 FPS on average. The difference between High and Ultra is 6 FPS, making the jump to Ultra a relatively minor performance cost for the visual upgrade.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Intel Core i7-14700F's nearest rivals offer nearly identical average benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53701, just 0.2% higher, making it a statistically equivalent choice. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469, a 0.3% difference. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, which is 0.6% lower. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, 0.8% below the i7-14700F. In practical terms, any of these processors would deliver essentially the same frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the performance deltas are within the margin of error for synthetic benchmarks.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the closest match, with an average score of 54209 versus the RTX 4080's 54247, a difference of just 0.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, which is 1.1% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, 2.6% higher, while the AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757, 2.7% higher. These AMD alternatives would provide a modest performance uplift in average terms, though the real-world FPS impact in this game would likely be minimal given the headroom already present.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 211 FPS on Low settings, indicating that the CPU is capable of feeding frames at a very high rate. The drop to 117 FPS at Ultra (a 45% reduction) suggests that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as graphical load increases, even at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues. Low settings produce 170 FPS, while Ultra yields 95 FPS, a 44% reduction. The fact that the relative drop between Low and Ultra is similar at 1080p and 1440p (45% vs 44%) indicates that the GPU is consistently the bottleneck when transitioning to higher presets, while the CPU maintains sufficient headroom.

The situation changes more dramatically at 3840x2160. Low settings drop to 125 FPS, and Ultra falls to 70 FPS, a 44% reduction from Low to Ultra. However, the absolute numbers are significantly lower across the board compared to 1440p. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at the same settings shows a substantial hit: Low goes from 170 to 125 FPS (26% drop), Medium from 132 to 97 FPS (27% drop), High from 99 to 73 FPS (26% drop), and Ultra from 95 to 70 FPS (26% drop).

This consistent ~26% reduction when moving from 1440p to 4K across all settings points to the GPU being the dominant factor at higher resolutions. The CPU's role is primarily to ensure that frame rates do not collapse at lower resolutions and presets, which the data confirms it does admirably. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking among all processors, combined with its strong multicore performance (35122 in Cinebench R23), provides a stable foundation that never becomes the primary constraint in this game.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally shows that this system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator with maximum settings at all tested resolutions. At 3840x2160, all four settings (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are listed as playable, with Ultra achieving an average of 70 FPS. This means users can enable the highest preset without any compromise.

At 2560x1440, the verdict is equally positive, with all settings playable and Ultra delivering 95 FPS on average. This provides substantial headroom over the 60 FPS threshold, allowing for smooth gameplay even in demanding scenarios with heavy scenery or weather effects.

At 1920x1080, the system performs exceptionally well, with Ultra averaging 117 FPS. This is well above the playable threshold and indicates that the system is future-proof for this game at this resolution, even as additional content or updates may increase demands.

The answer is a definitive yes: this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at maximum visual quality across all standard resolutions, with no settings falling below 60 FPS average.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested system combinations in the benchmark database, this pairing of the Intel Core i7-14700F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 ranks 215th out of 3714 combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 5.8% of all tested systems, indicating that it is a high-performing configuration for this specific title.

The rank reflects the combined capabilities of both components. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking among all processors and the GPU's 86th percentile ranking among all graphics cards contribute to a system that is well above average for this flight simulator. The 3714 total combinations tested means this setup outperforms the vast majority of alternatives, with only 214 systems achieving higher frame rates in this game.

This high ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows the system never dropping below 70 FPS average even at the most demanding 4K Ultra preset. The combination of a strong 20-core, 28-thread CPU and a high-end Ada Lovelace GPU creates a balanced platform capable of handling the unique demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for being both CPU-intensive in processing flight physics and GPU-intensive in rendering detailed scenery.