Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator using the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT reveals a system that is clearly capable of delivering playable frame rates across a wide spectrum of settings, but one that demands careful attention to resolution and preset selection to achieve its best experience. The measured results indicate that this combination is most at home at 1080p, where it can push well past 100 FPS at lower settings, while 4K Ultra represents a significant challenge, dipping below the 30 FPS threshold. Overall, this pairing lands in the 1351st position out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, a ranking that reflects its age and the demanding nature of this particular simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and clearly illustrates where the bottleneck lies. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 59.1 FPS at 1920x1080 to 48.8 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 35.2 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 40.4% reduction in performance when moving from 1080p to 4K, a scaling pattern that points directly at the GPU as the primary limiting factor. The RX 5700 XT, with its 8 GB of VRAM, is simply being overwhelmed by the sheer number of pixels required at 4K resolution.

This trend is consistent across all settings. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 101.6 FPS at 1080p to 78.8 FPS at 1440p and then to 56.1 FPS at 4K. Even at the lowest fidelity, the 4K resolution exacts a heavy toll. The data shows that the CPU is not the primary constraint here; the i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, has enough headroom to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but the GPU's pixel-pushing capabilities are exhausted as resolution climbs. The scaling curve is a textbook example of a GPU-bound scenario in a flight simulator, where the complex scenery and terrain rendering are heavily dependent on fill rate.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings also widens with resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (101.6 FPS) and Ultra (57.2 FPS) is 44.4 FPS. At 4K, that difference shrinks to 26.2 FPS (56.1 FPS Low vs 29.9 FPS Ultra). This compression of the performance gap at higher resolutions further confirms the GPU is the limiting factor; when the GPU is already saturated with pixel work, the additional load from higher graphical fidelity has a relatively smaller absolute impact on frame rate.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is the dominant component in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s, which is crucial for streaming the vast amounts of terrain and texture data the game demands. The measured frame rates show that this bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but the 3840x2160 results, particularly the 29.9 FPS at Ultra, suggest the card is running out of both compute and memory throughput.

The GPU's clock speeds are also telling. With a base clock of 1605 MHz and a boost clock of 1905 MHz, the card is running at a high frequency, but the RDNA 1.0 architecture is not efficient enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K in this title. The benchmark scores for the GPU, such as a Passmark G3D score of 16277, place it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (0.1% ahead), Intel Arc A350M (0.3% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (0.6% behind). This competitive positioning underscores that while the card is not a slouch, it is firmly in the mid-range category.

The GPU's performance is most effectively utilized at 1440p. Here, it delivers a solid 61.5 FPS at Medium settings and 48.8 FPS at High, which are perfectly playable for a flight simulator where precision is more important than high refresh rates. The card's 9.754 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is adequate for these resolutions, but the 4K Ultra results show its limits. The data suggests that users should not expect to run this game at maximum fidelity with this GPU; instead, it is best used as a high-quality 1080p or a capable 1440p card.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F plays a supporting but essential role. With 6 cores and 12 threads, it provides a solid foundation for the simulation's complex physics and AI calculations. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz are moderate by today's standards, but the benchmark results show it is not a significant bottleneck at 1080p. For instance, at 1080p Low, the system achieves 101.6 FPS, which is a high enough number to suggest the CPU is keeping up with the GPU's output.

The CPU's single-threaded performance, as indicated by a 3dmark single-thread score of 688 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1453, is adequate for the game's primary thread, which handles the bulk of the flight model and input processing. The multi-threaded scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10297 and a Passmark multithread score of 12115, show that it can handle the background tasks of terrain loading and object management without causing frame drops.

The CPU's percentile rank of 73 versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14168, places it in a competitive position. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.4% ahead), AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.8% behind), and Intel Core i5-8500 (1.1% behind), suggesting it is roughly on par with other mid-range options. For this game, the CPU appears to be a stable platform that does not limit the GPU until the resolution drops to 1080p Low, where the frame rate is high enough to potentially strain the CPU's single-thread capabilities, though the data does not show a hard limitation.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of the database, this Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT combination ranks 1351st out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 25th percentile of all tested systems, indicating that a significant majority of other hardware pairings deliver higher average frame rates. This low rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's age and the game's demanding nature, especially at higher resolutions.

The rank is not a reflection of a broken or faulty setup, but rather a statement of its performance ceiling. When compared to other combos in the database, this system is outclassed by more modern GPUs with higher memory bandwidth and newer architectures. However, the data also shows that this combo is not at the very bottom; it still outperforms a large number of older or lower-end configurations. The rank of 1351 out of 1795 suggests that while it is not a top-tier performer, it is a viable option for users who are not chasing maximum frame rates at 4K resolution.

This positioning is consistent with the individual component ranks. The GPU's 68th percentile and the CPU's 73rd percentile both point to mid-range hardware. When combined, they produce a system that is greater than the sum of its parts at 1080p, but falls behind the curve at 4K. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for users with 1080p or 1440p monitors who are willing to adjust settings to achieve a smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system shows its strongest performance. The Low preset delivers an average of 101.6 FPS, which is exceptionally smooth. Medium reduces this to 75.7 FPS, and High drops it further to 59.1 FPS, which is still perfectly playable. The Ultra preset brings the frame rate down to 57.2 FPS, remaining above the 60 FPS threshold by a slim margin, but the data shows a playable experience across the board.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates become more moderate. The Low preset averages 78.8 FPS, which is still very smooth. Medium produces 61.5 FPS, and High yields 48.8 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 45.3 FPS. These numbers indicate that 1440p is a viable resolution for this combo, provided the user is willing to use Medium or High settings for a comfortable experience, while Ultra is still playable but with more noticeable dips.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates. The Low preset averages 56.1 FPS, which is playable. Medium drops to 44.2 FPS, and High falls to 35.2 FPS. The Ultra preset results in an average of 29.9 FPS, which is below the standard 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. The data clearly shows that 4K is only suitable for Low or Medium settings, and even then, the frame rates are on the lower end of playability.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal experience for this combo is achieved at 2560x1440 with the Medium preset, which delivers 61.5 FPS. This strikes the best balance between visual fidelity and smoothness, providing a frame rate that is high enough for a responsive flight experience while still rendering the scenery in good detail. The High preset at this resolution (48.8 FPS) is also viable for users who prioritize visuals, but Medium is the safer choice for maintaining a consistent frame rate.

For users with 1080p monitors, the High preset at 59.1 FPS is the recommended starting point, as it approaches the 60 FPS target without sacrificing too much in terms of graphics quality. The Ultra preset at 57.2 FPS is also a good option, but the slight drop in frame rate may not be worth the marginal visual improvement. Users seeking the highest possible frame rates for competitive or smoothness reasons can use the Low preset, which averages 101.6 FPS.

At 4K resolution, the data suggests that only the Low preset (56.1 FPS) provides a consistently playable experience. The Medium preset (44.2 FPS) is tolerable, but users may experience noticeable stutters in dense areas. The High and Ultra presets at this resolution are not recommended, as the frame rates fall below 36 FPS, making the simulation feel sluggish and less immersive.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo can achieve?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 101.6 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is this combination capable of running the game at 4K Ultra settings?

A: No, the data shows that at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is only 29.9 FPS, which is below the playable threshold for a smooth experience.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rival in terms of benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT has an average benchmark score of 24731, which is 0.1% lower than the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile's score of 24763.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain a frame rate above 60 FPS?

A: At 1920x1080, all settings except for Ultra (57.2 FPS) achieve an average above 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low (78.8 FPS) and Medium (61.5 FPS) presets exceed this threshold.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-threaded performance score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F scores 10297 points in the Cinebench R23 multi-core benchmark.

Q: How many cores and threads does the CPU have?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads.