Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F posts an average benchmark score of 25,064. This puts it statistically even with the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (25,057, 0% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (25,099, -0.1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (24,993, 0.3% delta). The data shows a four-way tie within a fraction of a percent.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 19,774 and sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070, scores 19,680, placing the RTX 2060 SUPER 0.5% ahead. The gap to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (19,706) is 0.3%, and to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,623) it is 0.8%.

Q: What are the key specifications of the CPU and GPU in this combo?

A: The CPU is a 6-core, 12-thread AMD Ryzen 5 8400F with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. It uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process. The GPU is a Turing-architecture NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1470 MHz and boost clock is 1650 MHz.

Q: At which resolution and settings does this combo achieve the highest average FPS?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 98.2, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best result is 81.2 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings. The lowest measured result is 33.8 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the 4K Ultra result compare to the 1080p Low result?

A: The 4K Ultra average of 33.8 FPS is roughly one-third of the 1080p Low average of 98.2 FPS. This represents a drop of approximately 65% when moving from the lightest load to the heaviest load in the measured data.

Q: What is the combo's rank within this game's benchmark database?

A: This CPU-GPU combination ranks 1,209 out of 1,795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower third of all tested configurations.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is built on the 12 nm Turing architecture with 2,176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. It includes 34 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores, which are relevant for a flight simulator that increasingly uses compute-heavy rendering. The GPU's memory subsystem consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is a critical factor for high-resolution flight simulation, where terrain textures and cockpit displays consume significant VRAM.

The GPU's clock behavior shows a base of 1470 MHz and a boost of 1650 MHz. The memory clock is listed at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate. The pixel rate is 105.6 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 224.4 GTexel/s. These figures translate to a theoretical FP32 performance of 7.181 TFLOPS. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the data suggests the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 98.2 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 33.8 FPS—a reduction that points to the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth being stressed by the simulator's dense scenery rendering.

The GPU's benchmark profile shows a PassMark G3D score of 16,462 and a DirectX 12 score of 61. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2,011. These synthetic results align with the measured FPS behavior in this game: the RTX 2060 SUPER is a mid-range card (63rd percentile) that can handle 1080p and 1440p comfortably but struggles at 4K with high preset levels. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for most settings in this game, but the measured frame rates indicate that the GPU's compute throughput, not capacity, is the limiting factor at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 98.2 at 1920x1080 to 81.2 at 2560x1440, then to 56.5 at 3840x2160. This represents a 42% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the scores are 80.9, 63.7, and 46.2 for the three resolutions, respectively—a 43% drop from 1080p to 4K.

High settings show a similar trend: 61.9 FPS at 1080p, 49.4 at 1440p, and 34.8 at 4K, a 44% reduction. Ultra settings produce 54.7 FPS at 1080p, 48.0 at 1440p, and 33.8 at 4K, a 38% drop. The consistency of these reductions—hovering around 40%—indicates that the scaling penalty from 1080p to 4K is relatively uniform across all preset levels. This uniformity suggests the GPU is the dominant factor, as a CPU-bound scenario would show a smaller FPS penalty at higher resolutions.

The data also shows that the gap between Ultra and Low narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, Ultra (54.7) is 44% slower than Low (98.2). At 4K, Ultra (33.8) is 40% slower than Low (56.5). This compression at higher resolutions is typical of GPU-bound workloads, where the cost of each frame is dominated by pixel shading rather than scene complexity. For this combo, the limiting component is clearly the RTX 2060 SUPER at 4K, while at 1080p the CPU's 6-core configuration may still provide headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers an average of 98.2 FPS on Low settings, 80.9 on Medium, 61.9 on High, and 54.7 on Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 43.5 FPS, showing a wide range of playability. The 1080p Low result is the highest in the entire dataset, exceeding the 1440p Low score by 17 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 81.2 (Low), 63.7 (Medium), 49.4 (High), and 48.0 (Ultra). Note that the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 1.4 FPS, which is within the margin of run-to-run variance. This suggests that the High preset at 1440p captures most of the visual quality without the performance penalty of Ultra.

At 3840x2160, the results drop to 56.5 (Low), 46.2 (Medium), 34.8 (High), and 33.8 (Ultra). The gap between High and Ultra narrows further to 1.0 FPS. The 4K Low result of 56.5 FPS is still playable, but High and Ultra fall below the 35 FPS threshold, which is marginal for a flight simulator that requires smooth panning over terrain.

Across all resolutions, the relative ordering is consistent: Low > Medium > High > Ultra. The largest percentage drop between consecutive presets occurs between Low and Medium at 4K (18% reduction), while the smallest is between High and Ultra at 1440p (3% reduction). The data also shows that the 1080p Medium result (80.9) is nearly identical to the 1440p Low result (81.2), indicating that users can trade resolution for preset quality with equivalent performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 8000 series, based on the Zen 4 architecture (codename Phoenix) on a 4 nm TSMC process. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel operation, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20,851 and a single-core score of 2,943. The 3DMark scores show scaling from 951 (single-thread) to 6,165 (max-threads). The PassMark multithread score is 24,530, with a single-thread score of 3,684. These numbers place the CPU at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,064.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation's physics, flight model, and AI traffic. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low (98.2 FPS), the CPU is likely not the bottleneck, as the GPU can still produce high frame rates. However, at 1080p Ultra (54.7 FPS), the CPU might start to limit performance if the GPU is waiting on simulation updates. The fact that 1440p Low (81.2) is higher than 1080p Ultra (54.7) suggests that the preset level has a greater impact than resolution, which points to the GPU's shader load being the primary constraint.

The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, has an identical average score (25,057 vs 25,064), meaning this 6-core Zen 4 part matches an older 8-core design in general compute. In this game, the 12 threads are sufficient to feed the RTX 2060 SUPER at most settings, as the FPS scaling is consistent with GPU-bound behavior.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience. If the goal is maximum smoothness, the 1920x1080 Low preset delivers 98.2 FPS, which is well above the threshold for a fluid simulator. However, this sacrifices visual fidelity in a game where scenery clarity matters.

The most balanced choice appears to be 2560x1440 Medium, which produces 63.7 FPS. This is comfortably playable while offering a resolution that takes advantage of the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 256-bit bus. The step to 1440p High (49.4 FPS) is also viable, as it maintains an acceptable frame rate with improved textures and lighting.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1920x1080 Ultra (54.7 FPS) is a reasonable option. At this resolution, the Ultra preset provides the full effect of the simulator's rendering features without dropping below the 50 FPS mark. The 1440p Ultra result (48.0 FPS) is only slightly lower and might be preferable for those with a 1440p monitor, as the difference from High (49.4) is marginal at just 1.4 FPS.

The 4K presets are generally not recommended for this combo. The 4K High (34.8) and 4K Ultra (33.8) results fall below the 35 FPS line, which will likely produce noticeable stutter during rapid camera movements. Even 4K Medium (46.2) is borderline, though it might be acceptable for slow, scenic flights. The data suggests that the RTX 2060 SUPER is best paired with this CPU at 1080p or 1440p, with Medium or High presets providing the best balance of performance and visual quality. The 1080p Medium result (80.9 FPS) is particularly attractive, as it offers a 31% improvement over High settings at the same resolution while still looking better than Low.