Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 580 produces playable results in Microsoft Flight Simulator only under specific conditions. The data indicates that this combination ranks near the bottom of the tested pool, at position 1677 out of 1795 combos, placing it in the lower 7th percentile of all configurations. This is a pairing where the GPU consistently limits performance, and users must accept significant compromises in visual fidelity or resolution to achieve acceptable frame rates.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process. Its base clock is 2.90 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, and it features a 12 MB shared L3 cache. The processor supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 42.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The CPU’s benchmark scores show a moderate performance level: it achieves a 3DMark single-thread score of 688 and a multi-thread score of 4735 at max threads. In Cinebench R23, it scores 10297 in multi-core and 1453 in single-core tests.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the i5-10400F sits in a tight cluster. Its average benchmark score of 14168 is just 0.4% above the AMD EPYC 7552, which scores 14115. It trails the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C by 0.8% and the Intel Core i5-8500 by 1.1%. This indicates that from a pure CPU compute standpoint, the i5-10400F is a solid mid-range part, but its performance is not a differentiator in this game. The CPU’s 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs suggests it has enough headroom for most titles, but the measured FPS data reveals that the processor is not the primary bottleneck here.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for physics calculations, flight dynamics, and world geometry loading. The 6-core/12-thread configuration is sufficient for these tasks, as the game can utilize multiple threads. However, the data shows that even at 1080p Low settings, where CPU load is typically highest relative to GPU load, the average FPS is only 51.4. At 1080p Ultra, the FPS drops to 28.3. This marginal difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution suggests the GPU is already the limiting factor even at the lowest settings. The CPU’s boost clock of 4.30 GHz helps maintain minimum frame pacing, but the overall scores indicate it is not holding back the RX 580 in any meaningful way.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is the clear performance limiter in this configuration. This GPU features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1257 MHz with a boost clock of 1340 MHz, and the memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU is built on the Polaris 20 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines, delivering 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

The RX 580’s benchmark scores place it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13559. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, matches it exactly with a deltaPct of 0. The GeForce GTX 950 is 0.1% behind, while the AMD Radeon Pro 455 is 1.1% slower. This puts the RX 580 in a performance tier that is roughly equivalent to older GTX 500 and 900 series cards, which is far below what modern flight simulators demand. The GPU’s 8 GB VRAM is adequate for the game’s textures at 1080p, but the raw compute power is insufficient.

In terms of measured FPS, the RX 580 struggles at every resolution. At 1080p, the best result is 51.4 FPS on Low settings. The frame rate drops to 41.8 FPS on Medium, 32.8 FPS on High, and 28.3 FPS on Ultra. This pattern shows that each increase in settings costs roughly 8-9 FPS, which is a direct reflection of the GPU’s limited shading and texture throughput. The GPU’s boost clock of 1340 MHz is not enough to overcome the architectural limitations of GCN 4.0 in this workload. The pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s are simply too low for the complex rendering required by Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling data reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. From 1080p to 1440p to 4K, the FPS drops consistently across all settings, confirming that the RX 580 is the bottleneck at every resolution. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 51.4 at 1080p to 43.1 at 1440p (a 16% drop) and then to 29.9 at 4K (a 42% drop from 1440p). At High settings, the progression is 32.8 FPS at 1080p, 25.7 FPS at 1440p (a 22% drop), and 16.3 FPS at 4K (a 37% drop from 1440p).

This pattern is indicative of the GPU being the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload would stay constant while the GPU takes on more pixels. Instead, the FPS drops sharply with each resolution increase, which is exactly what happens when the GPU’s pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth are overwhelmed. The RX 580’s 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth is insufficient for 4K rendering, where the frame buffer demands are much higher.

The most telling comparison is between Low and Ultra at each resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low (51.4 FPS) and Ultra (28.3 FPS) is 45%. At 4K, the difference between Low (29.9 FPS) and Ultra (16.2 FPS) is also 46%. This consistency suggests that the GPU is not only bandwidth-limited but also compute-limited, as the relative cost of each settings tier remains constant regardless of resolution. The data shows that 4K is not viable with this combo, 1440p is marginal at best, and 1080p is the only resolution where playable frame rates are possible, and even then only on Low or Medium settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 1677 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 6.6% of all configurations, making it one of the weakest pairings in the database. The rank reflects the combined performance of both components, but given the CPU’s 73rd percentile ranking and the GPU’s 53rd percentile ranking, it is clear that the GPU drags the overall score down significantly.

To contextualize this rank, the CPU’s nearest rivals (the AMD EPYC 7552, Ryzen 3 7320C, Core i5-8500, and Ryzen Embedded V2546) all have similar average scores, with deltas ranging from -1.2% to 0.4%. This means the CPU is not the reason for the low combo rank. The GPU’s nearest rivals (GTX 570, GTX 950, Radeon Pro 455, and P106-090) are all older or lower-tier parts, and the RX 580 is at parity with them. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its heavy GPU load at higher settings, this level of GPU performance is simply inadequate for a smooth experience.

The combo rank of 1677 suggests that this configuration is suitable for 1080p gaming at Low or Medium settings, but nothing more. The measured FPS data supports this, as the only settings that exceed 30 FPS at 1080p are Low (51.4 FPS) and Medium (41.8 FPS). Even at 1440p, the best result is 43.1 FPS on Low, which is still below the 60 FPS target that many users prefer. The rank is a quantitative confirmation of what the FPS data shows: this is a budget-oriented pairing that cannot handle high-fidelity flight simulation.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user’s resolution and frame rate priorities. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 51.4 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience. The Medium preset drops to 41.8 FPS, which is still playable but noticeably less fluid. The High preset at 32.8 FPS is borderline, and the Ultra preset at 28.3 FPS is not recommended for consistent gameplay.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p offers the best balance, providing 41.8 FPS while maintaining a reasonable level of detail. The High preset at 1080p is acceptable for slow, scenic flights where occasional dips below 30 FPS are tolerable, but it is not ideal for dynamic scenarios. At 1440p, the Low preset is the only viable option, yielding 43.1 FPS, but the visual downgrade may not be worth the resolution increase. The 4K resolution is entirely impractical, with the best result being 29.9 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold.

The data indicates that the best experience is achieved at 1080p with the Medium preset. This provides 41.8 FPS, which is above the 30 FPS minimum for playability and offers better visuals than Low. Users who demand higher frame rates should stick with Low at 1080p, while those who accept lower FPS can experiment with High. The Ultra preset should be avoided, as it offers no performance benefit over High at any resolution, and the FPS drops to 16.3 at 4K and 26.6 at 1440p.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution to play Microsoft Flight Simulator with this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The measured data shows 1080p is the only resolution that consistently provides playable frame rates. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 51.4 FPS and Medium achieves 41.8 FPS. At 1440p, the best result is 43.1 FPS on Low, while 4K is not viable with any setting, as the highest FPS is 29.9 on Low.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14168, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115). It trails the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C by 0.8% (14277) and the Intel Core i5-8500 by 1.1% (14332). The scores are nearly identical, indicating the CPU is not a performance differentiator.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 580's 8 GB VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. While 8 GB is adequate for texture storage, the measured FPS data shows the GPU is still the limiting factor. At 1080p Ultra, the FPS drops to 28.3, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 16.2, indicating the VRAM capacity is not the issue—the raw compute power is insufficient.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 51.4 FPS, while the Ultra preset delivers 28.3 FPS. This represents a 45% drop in performance, showing that the GPU cannot handle the increased shading and texture demands of higher presets.

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

A: This combo ranks 1677 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 6.6% of all configurations, confirming that it is a low-performing pairing for this specific game.

Q: What is the GPU's benchmark standing relative to its nearest rival?

A: The RX 580 has an average benchmark score of 13559, which is exactly equal to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13564, deltaPct 0). It is 0.1% ahead of the GTX 950 and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 455, placing it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table presents the exact average FPS values from the measured data for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 51.4 FPS
• Medium: 41.8 FPS
• High: 32.8 FPS
• Ultra: 28.3 FPS

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 43.1 FPS
• Medium: 31.3 FPS
• High: 25.7 FPS
• Ultra: 26.6 FPS

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 29.9 FPS
• Medium: 25.3 FPS
• High: 16.3 FPS
• Ultra: 16.2 FPS

The data reveals a clear gradient: at 1080p, the combo can exceed 40 FPS on Medium and below, but falls below 30 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, only the Low preset stays above 40 FPS, while Medium and above all fall below 32 FPS. At 4K, every setting is below 30 FPS, with the lowest being 16.2 FPS on Ultra. The FPS drops are not linear—the jump from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 8-10 FPS on average, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs an additional 14-17 FPS, reflecting the GPU’s inability to handle the pixel count increase. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p show an anomaly where High (25.7 FPS) is slightly lower than Ultra (26.6 FPS), which may be due to specific scene complexity, but the overall trend is consistent: this combo is only viable at 1080p with Low or Medium settings.