Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for the Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 in Microsoft Flight Simulator is consistent across all tested resolutions and presets. Benchmark results are based on average FPS, with no minimum or maximum frame data recorded for any configuration.

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers high frame rates across the board. Low settings produce an average of 177.3 FPS, Medium settings reach 138.4 FPS, High settings achieve 103.6 FPS, and Ultra settings still hold at exactly 100 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a drop of roughly 77 FPS, but even the most demanding preset remains comfortably above the playable threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern continues with strong performance. Low settings average 141 FPS, Medium settings hit 111 FPS, High settings reach 82 FPS, and Ultra settings settle at 79.4 FPS. The reduction from 1080p to 1440p is substantial — about 36 FPS at Low, 27 FPS at Medium, 22 FPS at High, and 21 FPS at Ultra — but every preset still clears 60 FPS with margin.

At 3840x2160, the results are more demanding. Low settings average 101.1 FPS, Medium settings reach 82.4 FPS, High settings drop to 62.9 FPS, and Ultra settings barely stay above the playable line at 60.4 FPS. The difference between 1440p and 4K is notable: roughly 40 FPS at Low, 29 FPS at Medium, 19 FPS at High, and 19 FPS at Ultra. The Ultra preset at 4K is the only tested configuration that sits near the threshold, but it does not cross below it.

Resolution scaling shows a clear trend. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS loss across all presets is about 26%. From 1440p to 4K, the average FPS loss is roughly 24%. This indicates that the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor as resolution rises, with the CPU’s role diminishing at higher pixel counts.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 698th out of 3714 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the top percentile of all tested systems. The percentile data reinforces this: the CPU sits at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs. This suggests the pairing is well-balanced, with neither component dragging the other down significantly.

The rank of 698 out of 3714 means roughly 81% of tested combos perform worse, while about 19% perform better. For a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy CPU usage, the i7-14700F’s strong multi-core performance is a key factor. The CPU’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and single-core score of 4958 indicate capable processing power. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5077 and PassMark G3D score of 29137 confirm solid graphics throughput.

The combination’s rank reflects that it is a high-performing setup, but not an absolute top-tier one. The 91st percentile CPU and 82nd percentile GPU each contribute to the overall position. In a game that scales well with both CPU and GPU power, the balanced nature of this pairing is evident from the measured FPS data, which never falls below 60 FPS at any resolution or preset tested.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the CPU and GPU split responsibilities across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the CPU plays a larger role relative to the GPU. The gap between Low and Ultra settings is 77 FPS, and the high average FPS at all presets indicates that the CPU is feeding the GPU adequately. The i7-14700F’s 20 cores and 28 threads, with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, provide ample headroom for the simulator’s simulation and physics calculations.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts. The FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across presets, suggesting the GPU is becoming more involved. The RTX 5070’s 12 GB of GDDR7 memory and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for this resolution, but the rendering load increases. The CPU still keeps up, as evidenced by the fact that even Ultra settings at 1440p achieve 79.4 FPS, which is only slightly below the 1080p Ultra result of 100 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU dominates the performance equation. The FPS differences between presets become more pronounced relative to the CPU’s contribution. Ultra settings drop to 60.4 FPS, which is just above the playable threshold. Low settings still reach 101.1 FPS, indicating that the GPU can handle the resolution when effects are reduced, but the CPU’s role is less critical at this pixel count. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 4K is 40.7 FPS, compared to 77.3 FPS at 1080p, showing that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions.

Preset scaling also illustrates the division of labor. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium is 38.9 FPS, Medium to High is 34.8 FPS, and High to Ultra is 3.6 FPS. At 4K, the same jumps are 18.7 FPS, 19.5 FPS, and 2.5 FPS. The diminishing returns at Ultra settings across all resolutions indicate that the GPU’s architectural limits are being approached, while the CPU remains capable of handling the simulation load.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Intel Core i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53701, which is 0.2% higher, making it a nearly identical performer. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469, 0.3% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, 0.6% lower. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, 0.8% lower. These alternatives would produce very similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the performance deltas are within a single percentage point.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 has an average benchmark score of 40377. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 40318, just 0.1% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 scores 40063, 0.8% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300 scores 40870, 1.2% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile scores 39568, 2% lower. These rivals would behave similarly in terms of FPS, with the Radeon Pro 5300 potentially offering a slight edge and the RTX A500 Mobile trailing by a small margin.

In practice, a system with the Intel Xeon 6505P or AMD Ryzen 9 7900X paired with the RTX 5070 would deliver nearly identical results. Similarly, swapping the RTX 5070 for a Radeon Pro 580 or WX 7100 would yield FPS within a few points of the measured data. The deltas are small enough that the playability verdict would not change for any resolution or preset. Users with these nearby components can expect the same ranking and similar performance characteristics.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 60.4, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: Ultra settings are playable at 2560x1440, with an average FPS of 79.4. This is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU rank compared to other processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F is at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53620. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6505P, scores 53701, which is 0.2% higher.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings average 177.3 FPS and Ultra settings average 100 FPS, a difference of 77.3 FPS.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more important at 4K resolution?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the primary factor at 3840x2160. The FPS drop from 1440p to 4K is consistent across presets, and the Ultra preset at 4K sits at 60.4 FPS, close to the threshold.

Q: How many tested combinations does this setup outperform?

A: The combo ranks 698th out of 3714 tested combinations, meaning it outperforms roughly 81% of all tested systems in this game.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at all tested resolutions and presets. The verdict by resolution confirms that every configuration — from 1920x1080 Low to 3840x2160 Ultra — clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 1920x1080, the lowest measured average is 100 FPS at Ultra, which is well above the threshold. At 2560x1440, Ultra settings average 79.4 FPS, still with comfortable margin. At 3840x2160, Ultra settings average 60.4 FPS, which is just barely above the line but does not fall below it.

The data shows a consistent performance hierarchy: lower resolutions and lower presets yield higher FPS, and the system never struggles to maintain playability. The CPU’s strong multi-core performance supports the simulation’s demands, while the GPU handles rendering at all resolutions. The only configuration that approaches the limit is 4K Ultra, but it remains playable.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, with an average FPS of exactly 100. This is the recommended setting for this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Ultra settings are also the best choice, with an average FPS of 79.4. This provides a high-quality visual experience while maintaining a comfortable margin above the threshold.

At 3840x2160, Ultra settings achieve 60.4 FPS on average, which meets the playable threshold. This is the most demanding preset available, and it is the best setting for this resolution, though it leaves little headroom for frame rate fluctuations.

For users prioritizing maximum visual fidelity, Ultra is the optimal choice at every resolution. For those who prefer higher frame rates, dropping to High at 4K would yield 62.9 FPS, while Medium at 4K reaches 82.4 FPS, offering more stability if needed. However, the data supports Ultra as the best settings preset at all three resolutions, as it never falls below the 60 FPS playable line.