Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER reveals a clear pattern: the Low preset is the only setting tier that provides consistently playable frame rates across common resolutions. At 1920x1080, Low averages 77.4 FPS, which is the highest measured value for this combo in the entire dataset. Medium at the same resolution drops to 59.3 FPS, still acceptable for a flight simulator where camera panning is less frantic than in action titles, but the margin shrinks considerably at higher resolutions. High at 1080p yields 46.7 FPS, while Ultra falls to 41.6 FPS — both are workable for slower-paced simulation but leave little headroom for dense scenery or weather effects.

At 2560x1440, the data shows a steeper trade-off. Low averages 63 FPS, which remains smooth, but Medium falls to 45.4 FPS and High to 37.4 FPS. Ultra at 1440p produces 31.6 FPS, a figure that begins to strain the fluidity needed for landing approaches or low-altitude maneuvering. At 3840x2160, the picture deteriorates sharply: Low averages 45 FPS, Medium 34.1 FPS, High 23.5 FPS, and Ultra 22.6 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is barely above a slideshow threshold, and even 4K Low requires the user to accept significant visual compromises.

The best experience per the measured rows is the Low preset at 1920x1080. It delivers 77.4 FPS, which is 24.4% higher than Medium at the same resolution and 30.7 FPS above the High preset. For users prioritizing frame rate stability over visual fidelity, this is the clear choice. Alternatively, Medium at 1080p (59.3 FPS) offers a middle ground, but the data suggests that the jump from Low to Medium costs 18.1 FPS — a substantial penalty for a flight sim where terrain detail and cockpit readability matter more than ultra shadows.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary bottleneck in this pairing, and its specifications explain the measured FPS distribution. The GPU features 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), with a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The chip is built on a 12 nm process with 6,600 million transistors and a die size of 284 mm². Its 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS.

These specifications place the GPU in the 55th percentile of all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 14286. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (score 14314, deltaPct -0.2), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, -0.2), AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352, -0.5), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389, -0.7). The GTX 1660 SUPER sits slightly below all four, with the smallest deficit being just 0.2% — a negligible difference in real-world terms. This means the GPU is essentially on par with integrated Vega-class solutions in raw compute, though its dedicated 6 GB VRAM and 336 GB/s bandwidth are critical for texture streaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The 6 GB VRAM capacity is the defining constraint for this game. At 1080p, the data shows playable frame rates across all settings, but at 1440p and 4K, the average FPS drops by roughly 18-20% per resolution step regardless of preset. This suggests the GPU's memory bandwidth becomes saturated as pixel count increases, particularly on High and Ultra settings which load more detailed terrain textures. The boost clock of 1785 MHz is modest by modern standards, and the data indicates that higher settings do not proportionally increase GPU utilization — instead, they expose the memory subsystem's limits.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The measured data shows 1920x1080 as the only resolution where all four presets exceed 40 FPS. Low averages 77.4 FPS, Medium 59.3 FPS, High 46.7 FPS, and Ultra 41.6 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (63 FPS) and Medium (45.4 FPS) remain playable, while 4K only achieves 45 FPS on Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 14286, which places it slightly below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14314, deltaPct -0.2), Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (14315, -0.2), AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352, -0.5), and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14389, -0.7). The largest deficit is only 0.7%, indicating near-parity in compute performance.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 8400F holding back the GPU?

A: The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 20851 and single-core is 2943. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking suggests it provides ample headroom for this GPU, given that frame rates drop consistently with resolution — a classic GPU-bound pattern.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured average is 45.4 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings. This is 13.9 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p (59.3 FPS), but still smooth enough for most flight simulation scenarios.

Q: Does the Ultra preset ever become viable?

A: Ultra averages 41.6 FPS at 1080p, 31.6 FPS at 1440p, and 22.6 FPS at 4K. Only the 1080p result is comfortably playable; the 1440p and 4K figures fall below the 35 FPS threshold typically needed for acceptable fluidity in this genre.

Q: How does the combo's overall ranking look?

A: This combination ranks 1610th out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 10% of the database. This is consistent with the GPU's 55th percentile standing and the game's demanding nature.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a full spread of settings. Low averages 77.4 FPS, which is the single highest measured frame rate for this combo. Medium drops to 59.3 FPS, a 23.4% reduction. High yields 46.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 41.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 35.8 FPS, meaning the highest preset costs nearly half the frame rate of the lowest. For a flight simulator, this is a substantial penalty, but the 1080p results all remain above the 40 FPS mark, making even Ultra usable for less demanding scenes.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low averages 63 FPS, still respectable. Medium delivers 45.4 FPS, which is 17.6 FPS below the Low figure. High produces 37.4 FPS, and Ultra drops to 31.6 FPS. The transition from Medium to High costs 8 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 5.8 FPS. The data indicates that 1440p users should stick to Low or Medium unless they accept sub-40 FPS averages.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal. Low averages 45 FPS, which is technically playable but lacks the headroom for complex weather or dense urban areas. Medium averages 34.1 FPS, a 10.9 FPS drop from Low. High averages 23.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 22.6 FPS — nearly identical and both well below smoothness thresholds. The 4K data shows that the GTX 1660 SUPER's 6 GB VRAM and 336 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for high-fidelity rendering at this resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER combination ranks 1610th out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 89.7th percentile of worst performers — in other words, only 185 tested combos perform worse. This is a low ranking, but the data explains why: the GTX 1660 SUPER's 55th percentile GPU score (average 14286) is the limiting factor, while the CPU's 82nd percentile ranking (average benchmark score 25064) is comparatively strong.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (score 25057, deltaPct 0), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25099, -0.1), AMD EPYC 9474F (25103, -0.2), and AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24993, 0.3). The 8400F's score of 25064 is essentially tied with the Ryzen 7 2700X, and it is just 0.3% ahead of the Ryzen 5 7500F. This means the CPU is not the reason for the low combo ranking — it delivers competitive compute for its class.

The combo's position in the bottom 10% of all tested systems reflects the GPU's age and capacity. The GTX 1660 SUPER is end-of-life, released in 2019, and its 6 GB VRAM is below the 8 GB that modern flight sims increasingly expect. The data shows that even at 1080p, the Ultra preset (41.6 FPS) is only 10.2 FPS above 4K Low (45 FPS), suggesting the GPU is consistently stretched across all resolutions. For comparison, the combo's FPS figures at 1440p High (37.4 FPS) and 4K Medium (34.1 FPS) are within 3.3 FPS of each other, indicating a hard performance ceiling.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 8000 series, built on Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Phoenix) using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with 64 KB L1 cache per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. It connects via PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) on the AM5 socket, with a 65 W TDP.

Benchmark data shows the CPU's strengths: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 20851 and single-core scores 2943, while 3DMark tests show 6165 in max threads and 951 in single thread. PassMark multithread scores 24530 and single thread 3684. The CPU's average benchmark score is 25064, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, scores 25057 (deltaPct 0), meaning the 8400F is statistically tied with that older 8-core part. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 scores 25099 (-0.1), and the Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24993 (0.3) — all within a 0.4% band.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with world data, physics calculations, and AI traffic. The measured FPS patterns show that this combo is GPU-bound: frame rates scale nearly linearly with resolution and settings, with the CPU maintaining consistent performance across all tested rows. The 4.70 GHz boost clock and 12 threads provide sufficient single-thread performance for the sim's core loop, while the 16 MB L3 cache helps with texture streaming. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking means it is unlikely to be the limiting factor in this pairing — the data supports this conclusion, as the same CPU with a faster GPU would likely produce significantly higher FPS.