Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and AMD Radeon RX 580 pairing delivers a narrow performance envelope in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing a system that is consistently bound by the graphics card. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings paint a clear picture of a configuration that can manage playable frame rates only under the most forgiving conditions, while the combo’s standing among thousands of tested configurations confirms its position at the lower end of the spectrum. This analysis examines the resolution scaling, settings trade-offs, and the distinct roles of the CPU and GPU based strictly on the provided benchmark data.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, revealing a GPU-limited scenario at every preset. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 29.4 FPS at 1920x1080 to 23.9 FPS at 2560x1440, then plummets to 16.6 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a decline of approximately 19% from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 31% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total loss of about 44% from the lowest to highest resolution tested. The pattern holds across all settings, indicating that the rendering load scales predictably with pixel count.

At Low settings, the scaling is even more pronounced in absolute terms. The RX 580 manages 51.7 FPS at 1080p, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 50 FPS. Dropping to 1440p reduces this to 42.6 FPS, a 17.6% reduction, while 4K brings it down to 28.8 FPS, a further 32% decline from 1440p. The fact that even the lowest graphical preset cannot maintain 30 FPS at 4K strongly suggests that the GPU’s compute resources, rather than memory bandwidth or CPU throughput, are the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The RX 580’s 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply insufficient for the demands of this flight simulator at 4K.

The medium and ultra presets follow the same trajectory. Medium starts at 40.2 FPS at 1080p, falls to 34.5 FPS at 1440p, and ends at 25.7 FPS at 4K. Ultra begins at 30.4 FPS at 1080p, which is already below the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for smooth gameplay, then drops to 21.4 FPS at 1440p and 18.7 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these drops—roughly 15-20% from 1080p to 1440p and another 25-30% from 1440p to 4K—indicates that the scaling is purely resolution-driven, with no signs of CPU bottlenecking at lower resolutions. If the Ryzen 5 8400F were the constraint, we would expect to see diminishing FPS differences between 1080p and 1440p as the GPU becomes less stressed, but that is not the case here.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data offers a clear hierarchy of playability based on resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, Low settings yield an average of 51.7 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches what could be considered fluid performance for a flight simulator. Medium at 1080p drops to 40.2 FPS, still above the 30 FPS baseline, while High and Ultra fall to 29.4 and 30.4 FPS respectively, statistically equivalent and both below the 30 FPS mark. For users prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity, Low at 1080p is the only viable choice, as it provides a 28% improvement over Medium and a 76% improvement over High.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more constrained. Low produces 42.6 FPS, which is still playable, but Medium falls to 34.5 FPS and High to 23.9 FPS. Ultra at 21.4 FPS is marginal at best. The data suggests that 1440p users should stick to Low or Medium, with Low offering a 23% advantage over Medium in average FPS. The gap between Medium and High at 1440p is 44%, indicating a steep cost for the visual improvements that High brings.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 30 FPS. Low yields 28.8 FPS, Medium 25.7 FPS, High 16.6 FPS, and Ultra 18.7 FPS. The differences between High and Ultra are within a couple of frames, suggesting that the GPU is so saturated that additional graphical features have diminishing returns. For 4K users, Low is the only preset that comes close to a playable experience, and even then, it falls short of the 30 FPS benchmark. The recommendation from the data is unambiguous: this combination should be run at 1080p with Low settings for acceptable performance, or at 1440p with Low if the user can tolerate occasional dips below 45 FPS.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 8000 series, based on Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process. Its base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz provide strong single-thread performance, as evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2943. The multicore score of 20851 in the same test indicates solid scaling across its 12 threads. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-thread dependency in its simulation logic, the CPU’s single-core strength is likely sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the GPU at most settings.

The benchmark data supports this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 51.7 FPS, which is a reasonable level for this GPU. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect the FPS to plateau across different settings at the same resolution, since the simulation load is largely independent of graphical detail. Instead, we see a steady decline from Low to Ultra at 1080p (51.7 to 30.4 FPS), which confirms that the GPU is the primary constraint. The Ryzen 5 8400F’s 16 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (83.2 GB/s bandwidth) are adequate for feeding the RX 580, which itself has a 256-bit memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 82 among all processors, and its average benchmark score of 25064, place it in the upper tier of CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with a delta of 0%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with a delta of 0.3%, indicating nearly identical performance. This suggests that the 8400F is not a weak link in this pairing; rather, it has headroom that the RX 580 cannot utilize. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 6091 and max-thread score of 6165 further indicate that the CPU’s multithreaded capabilities are more than enough for a game that rarely scales beyond a few threads.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this specific pairing of the Ryzen 5 8400F and RX 580 ranks 1683 out of 1795 combos, placing it in the bottom 6.2% of all configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU, which sits at the 53rd percentile among all graphics cards, but the combination’s position is even lower than either component’s individual standing would suggest. The RX 580’s average benchmark score of 13559 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (delta 0%) and GTX 950 (delta 0.1%), both of which are older or lower-tier cards.

The rank of 1683 means that 112 other combos are slower, but the vast majority of tested systems outperform this one. The data indicates that this is a legacy GPU pairing with a modern CPU, and the resulting bottleneck is severe. At 1080p Ultra, the system achieves only 30.4 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS baseline for playability in this simulator. The combo’s rank is not surprising given that the RX 580 was released in 2017 and is now end-of-life, while the Ryzen 5 8400F is a 2024 part. The mismatch in generation is evident in the FPS numbers, where even the best-case scenario (1080p Low) barely exceeds 50 FPS.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is the clear limiting factor in this configuration. With 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, a base clock of 1257 MHz, and a boost clock of 1340 MHz, it delivers 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s are modest by modern standards, and the 185 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU reflects its age. The GPU’s percentile rank of 53 places it in the middle of the pack, but its nearest rivals—GTX 570, GTX 950, Radeon Pro 455—are all older or workstation parts, confirming its legacy status.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s limitations are exposed by the resolution scaling data. At 4K Ultra, the system manages only 18.7 FPS, which is essentially unplayable. Even at 1080p High, the 29.4 FPS average is below the 30 FPS threshold, indicating that the RX 580 cannot handle the simulator’s detailed terrain and aircraft models at higher presets. The 8 GB of VRAM is likely sufficient for 1080p, but at 4K, the memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s becomes a bottleneck, as the data shows only a marginal difference between High (16.6 FPS) and Ultra (18.7 FPS) at that resolution.

The GPU’s compute score of 3488 in Passmark and DirectX 12 score of 43 are indicative of its age, and the lack of hardware ray tracing or tensor cores means it relies entirely on traditional rasterization. The simulator’s reliance on draw calls and texture streaming is well-served by the 2304 shading units, but the 32 ROPs are insufficient for high-resolution rendering. The data conclusively shows that the RX 580 is the component that must be upgraded to improve performance in this game, as the CPU has ample headroom.

FAQ

Q: What is the best setting for this combo at 1080p?

A: Low settings yield the highest average FPS at 51.7, which is the only configuration above 50 FPS. Medium achieves 40.2 FPS, while High and Ultra both fall below 30 FPS.

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

A: No preset reaches 30 FPS at 3840x2160. The best result is Low at 28.8 FPS, followed by Medium at 25.7 FPS, Ultra at 18.7 FPS, and High at 16.6 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 8400F compare to its closest rivals?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score of 25064 is within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24993) and within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 9474F, showing near-identical performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as FPS scales consistently with resolution and settings, while the CPU’s single-core score of 2943 in Cinebench R23 suggests ample headroom.

Q: What is the FPS difference between High and Ultra at 1440p?

A: High produces 23.9 FPS, while Ultra produces 21.4 FPS, a difference of 2.5 FPS, indicating that Ultra’s added visual features cost little performance at this resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1683 out of 1795 combos, placing it in the bottom 6.2%, which is consistent with the RX 580’s mid-range standing and the simulator’s demanding rendering requirements.