Microsoft Flight Simulator

This combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 92nd out of 3,714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 2.5% of all systems benchmarked. The percentile data reinforces this positioning: the CPU sits in the 94th percentile among all processors, while the GPU falls in the 88th percentile among all graphics cards. That rank of 92 is not merely a product of raw component strength; it reflects how well this pairing handles the specific demands of a flight simulator that relies heavily on both single-threaded CPU performance and sustained GPU throughput.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 92 out of 3,714 tested configurations places this system firmly in the upper echelon of tested hardware. To contextualize that rank, consider that only 91 other combinations delivered higher average frame rates across the tested settings and resolutions. The data indicates a system that is not just playable but exceptionally capable, with headroom to spare even at the most demanding settings. The CPU's 94th percentile standing among all processors suggests that the i7-14700KF is a top-tier part for this workload, while the GPU's 88th percentile shows the RTX 4090 is similarly elite, though slightly less dominant relative to its peers. The gap between these percentiles hints at a system where the CPU is marginally more decisive for the final ranking than the GPU, a point examined further in the CPU and GPU roles section. Notably, the combo outperforms the vast majority of the 3,714 tested systems, and the measured FPS data confirms that this is a configuration built for high-refresh-rate flight simulation at any resolution.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, which delivers an average of 129.6 FPS. This is more than double the playable threshold, indicating that the system is heavily GPU-bound at this resolution, with the CPU having ample headroom to feed the graphics card. Moving to 2560x1440, the Ultra preset again remains the best choice, producing an average of 101.9 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is approximately 27% in frame rate, yet the system still clears the 60 FPS bar by a wide margin. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset yields an average of 77.6 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold but with less margin than at lower resolutions. The data shows that this combo can run the game at maximum settings across all three resolutions, with 4K Ultra being the only scenario where the frame rate dips below 80 FPS. For users prioritizing a locked 60 FPS experience, the High preset at 4K offers 79.7 FPS, providing a slightly higher average with the same visual quality tier. However, the Ultra preset at 4K remains fully playable, and the 77.6 FPS average suggests only rare dips below 60 FPS, if any, given the lack of min/max data in the measurements.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals a clear division of labor. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is significant: 233.3 FPS versus 129.6 FPS, a 44% reduction in performance when moving to maximum quality. This indicates that at 1080p, the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as the CPU can push far more frames than the graphics card can render at higher settings. The CPU's role becomes more apparent when examining the 4K results. At 3840x2160, the gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 137.4 FPS versus 77.6 FPS, a 44% drop, but the absolute frame rates are much lower. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is still dominant, but the CPU's contribution is more significant because the overall frame rate is closer to the CPU's limit.

The CPU's importance is further highlighted by the scaling from 1440p to 4K at the same settings. For Ultra, the frame rate drops from 101.9 FPS at 1440p to 77.6 FPS at 4K, a 24% reduction. This is a smaller percentage drop than the 27% seen from 1080p to 1440p, which implies that at higher resolutions, the GPU load increases disproportionately, but the CPU remains a constant factor. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded CPU usage in simulation logic, the i7-14700KF's 5.60 GHz boost clock and 6,235 single-core Cinebench R23 score are critical assets. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, but at 4K Ultra, the system operates closer to a balanced state where both components are heavily utilized.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals based on average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. The Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69,996, which is 0.2% lower than the i7-14700KF's 70,163 average, making it a near-identical performer. The Ryzen 9 7940HX trails by 0.4% with a score of 69,875, while the Ryzen 9 7950X is 0.9% behind at 69,515. On the other side, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is 1% faster with a score of 70,879. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning that in real-world gaming, the differences would be imperceptible. For this game, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Pro A60, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, and AMD Radeon PRO V710. The Arc Pro A60 matches the RTX 4090's average score of 60,347 with a 0% delta, while the Radeon Pro Vega 48 is 0.3% slower at 60,140. The Radeon Pro W6600M is 2.5% faster at 61,896, and the Radeon PRO V710 is 2.9% slower at 58,657. These are all professional workstation cards, which suggests that the RTX 4090's gaming performance is not directly comparable to these rivals in a gaming context, but the benchmark scores place them in a similar performance tier. For a user considering alternatives, swapping the CPU to a Ryzen 7 9700F or the GPU to an Arc Pro A60 would yield essentially identical average frame rates in this game, assuming no other system bottlenecks.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 233.3 FPS on Low settings, 181.7 FPS on Medium, 137.9 FPS on High, and 129.6 FPS on Ultra. The step from Low to Medium is a 22% reduction, while the step from Medium to High is 24%, and from High to Ultra is only 6%. This pattern suggests that the Ultra preset adds relatively little GPU load compared to High, likely due to diminishing returns on certain effects. At 2560x1440, the averages are 184 FPS on Low, 146.2 FPS on Medium, 108 FPS on High, and 101.9 FPS on Ultra. The relative drops are similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower due to the increased pixel count. At 3840x2160, the averages fall to 137.4 FPS on Low, 108.9 FPS on Medium, 79.7 FPS on High, and 77.6 FPS on Ultra. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K narrows to just 3%, indicating that the Ultra preset at 4K is only marginally more demanding than High.

The data shows that the system maintains playable frame rates at every settings level across all three resolutions. Even the most demanding combination — 4K Ultra — averages 77.6 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold. The lack of min/max FPS data means that frame time consistency cannot be assessed, but the average figures suggest a smooth experience. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra is a 21% reduction (129.6 to 101.9 FPS), and from 1440p to 4K at Ultra is a 24% reduction (101.9 to 77.6 FPS), showing a consistent relationship between resolution and performance.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator with room to spare. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: at 1920x1080, the Ultra preset averages 129.6 FPS, which is more than double the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 101.9 FPS, still far above the playable threshold. At 3840x2160, Ultra averages 77.6 FPS, clearing 60 FPS with a 29% margin. All four settings — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are marked as playable at every resolution, meaning the system never drops below the 60 FPS threshold on average, even under maximum load. The strongest verdict is at 1080p and 1440p, where the system delivers high-refresh-rate performance that exceeds what most monitors can display. At 4K, the system remains fully playable at maximum settings, making this a top-tier configuration for flight simulation enthusiasts who demand the highest visual fidelity without compromising on smoothness.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest graphical preset that maintains at least 60 FPS at 4K?

A: The Ultra preset at 3840x2160 averages 77.6 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. All four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at 4K, with Ultra being the most demanding option that still clears 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700KF has an average benchmark score of 70,163, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F's 69,996. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is 1% faster with a score of 70,879, making it the closest competitor on the upper end.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU more important for reaching high frame rates at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU can push frame rates as high as 233.3 FPS on Low settings, but the GPU only manages 129.6 FPS on Ultra, showing that graphics processing is the bottleneck at this resolution.

Q: What performance difference is there between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 108 FPS, while Ultra averages 101.9 FPS. The difference is only 6%, indicating that Ultra provides a marginal visual improvement for a small performance cost.

Q: Does the system rank highly among all tested combos?

A: Yes, this combo ranks 92nd out of 3,714 tested configurations, placing it in the top 2.5% of all systems. The CPU is in the 94th percentile and the GPU in the 88th percentile among their respective components.

Q: Can the system maintain 60 FPS on the highest settings at all resolutions?

A: Yes, the Ultra preset averages 129.6 FPS at 1080p, 101.9 FPS at 1440p, and 77.6 FPS at 4K. All resolutions clear the 60 FPS threshold, with 4K Ultra having the smallest margin at 29% above the playable threshold.