Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS in 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1920x1080, the combination achieves 94.6 FPS on Low settings and 70.2 FPS on Medium settings. Both exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold. High settings drop to 55.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50.7 FPS, so those presets do not sustain 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p for this hardware combo?

A: At 2560x1440, only the Low preset clears 60 FPS, delivering 72.3 FPS on average. Medium runs at 59 FPS, just below the playable threshold, while High (43.8 FPS) and Ultra (43.3 FPS) are not viable for smooth gameplay.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this CPU and GPU combination?

A: No. At 3840x2160, none of the tested presets reach 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 54.1 FPS, followed by Medium at 41.9 FPS, High at 32.2 FPS, and Ultra at 31.5 FPS. The verdict data confirms no playable settings exist at this resolution.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290. Its nearest rival, the GTX 580, scores 15283 (0% delta), while the AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270 (0.1% higher), the RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199 (0.6% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171 (0.8% higher). These differences are negligible, placing all four GPUs in the same performance tier.

Q: What is the CPU's standing relative to other processors in the database?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900K ranks in the 95th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79097. Its nearest rival, the Core i9-14900KF, scores 79371, which is 0.3% higher. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is 0.6% higher, the AMD EPYC 7413 is 1.2% higher, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is 1.7% lower.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking across all graphics cards?

A: The RTX 2060 sits in the 58th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15290. This places it in the mid-range tier, well below the CPU's 95th percentile ranking, which explains why the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU in this combination occupy very different positions in the benchmark database, and their nearest rivals reflect that split.

For the Intel Core i9-14900K, the closest alternatives are all within a narrow band of performance. The Core i9-14900KF scores 79371, just 0.3% above the i9-14900K's 79097 average. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers 79574, or 0.6% higher, and the AMD EPYC 7413 reaches 80041, which is 1.2% above. On the lower side, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740, 1.7% below. In practical terms, any of these processors would behave nearly identically in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the differences are within measurement noise. The i9-14900K's 95th percentile ranking means it sits far above the CPU demands of this game, so swapping to any of these rivals would not meaningfully change frame rates.

The GPU side tells a different story. The RTX 2060's average score of 15290 is matched almost exactly by the GTX 580 at 15283, a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, just 0.1% lower, while the RTX 3050 OEM comes in at 15199 (0.6% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 15171 (0.8% lower). These four GPUs form a tight cluster, meaning a user moving between any of them would see essentially the same frame rates in this simulator. The RTX 2060's 58th percentile ranking confirms it is a mid-range part, and the game's GPU load at higher resolutions will expose this limitation regardless of which near-identical rival is chosen.

Because the CPU is dramatically overqualified for this game while the GPU is only average, the performance profile of this combination is determined almost entirely by the graphics card. Users considering alternatives should focus on the GPU tier, as the processor headroom is already far beyond what Microsoft Flight Simulator requires.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear division of labor between the Intel Core i9-14900K and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU, ranked in the 95th percentile of all processors, provides far more compute headroom than this game can utilize. The GPU, ranked in the 58th percentile, becomes the performance bottleneck as resolution increases.

At 1920x1080, the scaling between presets shows the GPU's influence. Low settings produce 94.6 FPS, Medium drops to 70.2 FPS, High falls to 55.9 FPS, and Ultra reaches only 50.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 24.4 FPS (a 25.8% drop), while the step from Medium to High costs another 14.3 FPS. This steep decline with each preset tier indicates that the GPU's shading units, texture units, and memory bandwidth are being saturated as visual complexity rises. The CPU, with 24 cores and 32 threads, is not the constraint here.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same pattern continues but with lower absolute numbers. Low delivers 72.3 FPS, Medium 59 FPS, High 43.8 FPS, and Ultra 43.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium narrows to 13.3 FPS, while High and Ultra nearly converge. This convergence at the top presets suggests the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling, likely related to the 6 GB GDDR6 memory capacity or the 192-bit memory bus, rather than raw compute.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is fully overwhelmed. Low yields 54.1 FPS, Medium 41.9 FPS, High 32.2 FPS, and Ultra 31.5 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra shrinks to just 0.7 FPS, confirming that the GPU has reached its absolute limit. The CPU's role at this resolution is essentially irrelevant; the RTX 2060 cannot push enough frames regardless of how much processor headroom exists.

The resolution scaling tells the same story. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the frame rate drops from 94.6 to 72.3 FPS, a 23.6% loss. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, it falls from 72.3 to 54.1 FPS, another 25.2% loss. These consistent penalties across resolution steps are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 39399.5 and a single-core score of 2262.5, are far beyond what a flight simulator needs, even with complex scenery and weather calculations. The RTX 2060's 6.451 TFLOPS FP32 compute and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for high-resolution rendering in this title.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only within specific resolution and preset combinations. The database verdict is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best 4K result is Low at 54.1 FPS, which falls short of the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable on Low settings only, with an average of 72.3 FPS. Medium nearly makes it at 59 FPS, but since the playable threshold is 60 FPS, it does not qualify. Users must accept Low settings for a smooth 1440p experience.

At 1920x1080, the system offers more flexibility. Both Low (94.6 FPS) and Medium (70.2 FPS) clear the 60 FPS threshold. The best playable setting at this resolution is Medium, which provides a comfortable margin above the minimum requirement. High and Ultra are not playable, at 55.9 FPS and 50.7 FPS respectively.

The overall ranking places this combination at 2856 out of 3714 tested combos, which is in the lower portion of the database. This reflects the GPU's mid-range standing rather than the CPU's strength. Users with high-refresh-rate monitors should stick to 1080p Medium for the best balance of visual quality and smoothness. Those prioritizing 1440p must compromise with Low settings. 4K is not a realistic option for this hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates come from direct testing of the Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 across three resolutions and four preset levels.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows. Low settings produce an average of 94.6 FPS. Medium settings deliver 70.2 FPS. High settings drop to 55.9 FPS. Ultra settings yield 50.7 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 43.9 FPS, with each preset tier costing roughly 15 to 25 FPS. The minimum and maximum frame rates were not recorded in the database, so only the averages are available for analysis.

At 2560x1440, the performance declines across all presets. Low settings average 72.3 FPS. Medium settings reach 59 FPS, just one frame below the playable threshold. High settings produce 43.8 FPS. Ultra settings deliver 43.3 FPS. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 0.5 FPS, indicating that the GPU has hit a performance ceiling beyond the High preset.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles across the board. Low settings average 54.1 FPS. Medium settings produce 41.9 FPS. High settings yield 32.2 FPS. Ultra settings manage 31.5 FPS. The step from High to Ultra costs just 0.7 FPS, again showing a hard GPU limit. The gap between Low and Ultra is 22.6 FPS, far narrower than the 43.9 FPS spread seen at 1080p, which suggests that even the lowest preset is nearly saturating the GPU at 4K.

The data shows no minimum or maximum frame rate values, so the analysis relies on averages. However, the consistent pattern across resolutions and presets makes the performance characteristics clear: the RTX 2060 is the binding constraint, and the i9-14900K never becomes a limiting factor in any tested configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

For users targeting 60 FPS, the best playable settings are determined by the highest preset that maintains at least 60 FPS on average.

At 1920x1080, the best setting is Medium, which delivers 70.2 FPS. This provides a 10.2 FPS margin above the playable threshold while offering significantly better visual quality than Low. Low settings are also playable at 94.6 FPS, but Medium is the recommended choice because it maximizes quality without sacrificing smoothness. High and Ultra are not viable at this resolution, as they fall to 55.9 FPS and 50.7 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, the best setting is Low, with an average of 72.3 FPS. This is the only preset that clears 60 FPS at this resolution. Medium comes close at 59 FPS, but it misses the threshold by one frame, so it cannot be recommended for consistent 60 FPS gameplay. Users who insist on Medium settings at 1440p will experience occasional drops below the target, even if the average is nearly there.

At 3840x2160, there is no best setting because no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest option is Low at 54.1 FPS, which falls 5.9 FPS short of the playable threshold. The verdict data confirms an empty list of playable settings for this resolution.

The pattern across resolutions is straightforward: the GPU can handle 1080p Medium and 1440p Low, but cannot sustain 60 FPS at 4K under any preset. Users should set their resolution and preset according to these measured results to avoid disappointment. The data does not include minimum or maximum frame rates, so these averages represent the expected performance level, but real-world sessions may see dips below the average depending on the in-game scene complexity.