Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i7-14700K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is an exceptionally strong combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator, delivering 60+ FPS at every tested resolution and preset. The data confirms that this system can run the game at maximum visual quality with a comfortable performance margin, making it a top-tier choice for flight simulation enthusiasts.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i7-14700K occupies a competitive position in the CPU landscape, with benchmark scores placing it within a narrow band of high-end processors. The nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9115, which scores 69288 compared to the i7-14700K's 69355 average, a mere 0.1% difference. This places the two processors at virtual parity in synthetic workloads. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X sits 0.2% behind with a score of 69515, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX trails by 0.7% at 69875. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F rounds out the group at 69996, 0.9% behind. These deltaPct values are all within a single percentage point, meaning that in practical gaming scenarios, users would be hard-pressed to perceive any meaningful difference between these CPUs. The i7-14700K ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, underscoring its position near the top of the performance hierarchy.

On the graphics side, the RTX 4080 SUPER shows similar clustering with its nearest competitors. The standard RTX 4080 scores 54247, just 0.1% below the 4080 SUPER's 54209 average, indicating that the SUPER variant offers marginal gains over its predecessor. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X sits 1.1% behind at 54828, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB trails by 2.7% at 55698. The AMD Radeon 8060S completes the group at 55757, 2.8% behind. These differences suggest that for Microsoft Flight Simulator, any of these GPUs would deliver broadly similar frame rates, though the RTX 4080 SUPER's 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms its high-end status.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU workload shifts as pixel count increases. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 211.5 FPS at Low settings, which drops to 164.8 FPS at Medium, 120.4 FPS at High, and 117.9 FPS at Ultra. The relatively small gap between High and Ultra at this resolution—just 2.5 FPS—suggests that the CPU is beginning to become a limiting factor at lower resolutions, as the GPU has enough headroom to handle the extra graphical load without significant frame rate penalties.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern changes noticeably. Low settings produce 170.1 FPS, Medium yields 129.5 FPS, High delivers 96.9 FPS, and Ultra maintains 95.2 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent performance drop across all presets, with Low falling by 41.4 FPS, Medium by 35.3 FPS, High by 23.5 FPS, and Ultra by 22.7 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is now taking on a more significant role, as the increased pixel count demands more from the graphics card while the CPU workload remains relatively constant.

At 3840x2160, the GPU dominance becomes even more pronounced. Low settings drop to 121.8 FPS, Medium to 95.5 FPS, High to 71.4 FPS, and Ultra to 65.9 FPS. The transition from 1440p to 4K produces substantial frame rate reductions: Low falls by 48.3 FPS, Medium by 34.0 FPS, High by 25.5 FPS, and Ultra by 29.3 FPS. The fact that even the most demanding setting at 4K stays above 60 FPS demonstrates that this combination has sufficient GPU headroom for the game's heaviest scenarios. The data clearly shows that at 1080p, the CPU plays a more prominent role in determining frame rates, while at 4K, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 117.9 FPS, which is the highest quality setting available and remains well above the 60 FPS threshold. There is no reason to compromise on visual fidelity at this resolution, as the system has substantial performance headroom.

At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset maintains 95.2 FPS, again providing the best visual experience without any performance concerns. The gap between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 1.7 FPS, making the choice of Ultra a straightforward decision.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset achieves 65.9 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by a modest margin. This is the most demanding configuration tested, and while it remains playable, it offers less headroom than lower resolutions. The High preset at 71.4 FPS provides a slightly safer buffer, but Ultra remains viable for users who prioritize visual quality. The data shows that all settings at all resolutions exceed 60 FPS, so the best setting at each resolution is simply the highest quality preset available.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60+ FPS across every resolution and preset combination tested. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset delivers 117.9 FPS, providing an exceptionally smooth experience with maximum visual quality. At 2560x1440, Ultra maintains 95.2 FPS, still offering a significant performance cushion. At 3840x2160, Ultra achieves 65.9 FPS, which clears the playability threshold but leaves less margin for demanding scenes or heavy weather effects.

The verdict by resolution confirms that all three resolutions support playable settings across the entire preset range. The best settings at each resolution are Ultra, with average frame rates of 117.9 FPS at 1080p, 95.2 FPS at 1440p, and 65.9 FPS at 4K. This combination is particularly well-suited for users who want to run the game at maximum settings without worrying about frame rate drops. The only consideration is that at 4K Ultra, the system operates closer to the 60 FPS threshold, so users who prefer a larger safety margin might opt for High settings at 71.4 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its highest frame rates across all settings. Low settings achieve 211.5 FPS, Medium reaches 164.8 FPS, High delivers 120.4 FPS, and Ultra maintains 117.9 FPS. The performance scaling from Low to Ultra shows a total reduction of 93.6 FPS, with the most significant single-step drop occurring between Medium and High at 44.4 FPS.

At 2560x1440, frame rates remain robust. Low settings produce 170.1 FPS, Medium delivers 129.5 FPS, High achieves 96.9 FPS, and Ultra maintains 95.2 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra totals 74.9 FPS, with the largest step between Medium and High at 32.6 FPS. The High to Ultra transition is minimal at just 1.7 FPS, suggesting that Ultra's additional graphical features have little performance impact at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system still delivers playable performance throughout. Low settings achieve 121.8 FPS, Medium reaches 95.5 FPS, High delivers 71.4 FPS, and Ultra maintains 65.9 FPS. The total reduction from Low to Ultra is 55.9 FPS, with the largest step between Medium and High at 24.1 FPS. The High to Ultra gap is 5.5 FPS, representing the smallest absolute difference across all resolutions. The data shows no recorded minimum or maximum FPS values, so the analysis relies entirely on average frame rates, which remain consistently above the 60 FPS threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the Intel Core i7-14700K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER ranks 271st. This places the system in the top 7.3% of all tested configurations, confirming its status as a high-performance solution for this game. The rank reflects the combined capability of the CPU and GPU, with the CPU's 94th percentile standing and the GPU's 86th percentile positioning both contributing to the overall result.

The ranking is particularly impressive given that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for being demanding on both processors and graphics cards. The fact that this combination sits in the 271st position out of over 3700 configurations suggests that only a relatively small number of more powerful setups—likely featuring flagship CPUs and GPUs—would offer better performance. For users with this combination, the data indicates that they are unlikely to encounter performance limitations in normal gameplay, even at the highest settings and resolutions. The combination ranks 271st, meaning 271 configurations performed better, while the vast majority of tested systems delivered lower frame rates.