Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F pairs with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 to form a mid-range 1080p-oriented build, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s demanding flight model and rendering engine test this pairing in specific ways. The CPU provides 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, built on the Comet Lake architecture using Intel’s 14 nm process. This processor’s benchmark profile shows a single-thread score of 688 in 3DMark and a multi-thread score of 4735 at max threads, which places it in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. In a flight simulator, single-thread performance often dictates how smoothly the simulation logic and scenery loading are processed, and the 4.30 GHz boost clock helps here. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared, and memory bandwidth is 42.7 GB/s over dual-channel DDR4, which is adequate for feeding the six cores during complex flight scenes.

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

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy simulation workloads that scale with scenery complexity and aircraft systems modeling. The i5-10400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads provide enough parallelism to handle the game’s background tasks, but the benchmark results show that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at most settings. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 10297 and the single-core score is 1453, indicating a balanced design that favors bursty single-thread work. The game’s performance at 1080p Low settings reaches 95.1 FPS on average, which suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately when graphical load is minimal. The PassMark single-thread score of 2541 reinforces that the processor’s per-core capability is respectable for a 10th-generation part, though it trails newer designs. Compared to its nearest rivals, the i5-10400F’s average benchmark score of 14168 is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, +0.4%) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, -0.8%), showing that it sits in a crowded performance tier.

The L3 cache size and memory bandwidth are modest by modern standards, but they do not appear to severely limit frame rates in this game. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 27.4, which is far below playable, and the CPU’s role here is secondary to the GPU’s inability to render at that resolution. The boost clock of 4.30 GHz is the key specification for this title because flight simulators often have single-threaded sections that dictate minimum frame rates. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1350 and 4-thread score of 2560 show that even with fewer threads active, the processor maintains solid throughput. This means that when the game is not fully utilizing the GPU, the CPU can step up and keep the simulation running without stutter. However, the data shows that at no resolution or setting does the i5-10400F become the sole limiting factor, as the frame rates scale consistently with graphical preset changes.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s base clock is 1626 MHz, with a boost clock of 2491 MHz and a game clock of 2044 MHz. This memory configuration is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p in most titles, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s high-resolution textures and streaming world can pressure the 8 GB VRAM capacity. The benchmark results show that the RX 6600’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1492, and its PassMark G3D score is 15096, placing it in the 69th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 890M (25246, +0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (25120, +0.5%), indicating that the RX 6600’s overall benchmark average of 25235 is tightly clustered with those parts.

In the game, the GPU’s performance drops sharply as resolution increases. At 1080p High, the average FPS is 56.9, which is playable but not smooth for a flight simulator where constant panning is common. At 1440p High, the average FPS falls to 41.9, and at 4K High it drops to 28.5. These numbers reveal that the RX 6600 is stretched beyond its comfort zone above 1080p for this title. The GPU’s 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs are not enough to handle the complex rendering of terrain and weather at higher resolutions. The 8 GB VRAM may also cause texture streaming issues at 4K, even though the average FPS at 4K Low (55.7) shows that reducing settings can bring the game into a playable range. The boost clock of 2491 MHz is high, and it helps at 1080p, where the frame rates are more respectable, but the fundamental compute throughput of 8.928 TFLOPS FP32 limits high-resolution performance.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear scaling pattern across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 95.1, which drops to 74.7 at 1440p Low and 55.7 at 4K Low. This represents a 21.5% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 41.4% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 70.1 FPS at 1080p, 59.8 at 1440p, and 44.8 at 4K. The High settings show 56.9 FPS at 1080p, 41.9 at 1440p, and 28.5 at 4K. The Ultra settings are the most demanding, with 51.3 FPS at 1080p, 43.1 at 1440p, and 27.4 at 4K. The frame rate drops are steeper from 1440p to 4K than from 1080p to 1440p, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. The CPU’s performance is consistent across resolutions, as evidenced by the fact that the FPS differences between settings at each resolution are proportional.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the combination is roughly balanced, but as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the bottleneck. This is typical for a mid-range card like the RX 6600, which has enough compute for 1080p gaming but lacks the memory bandwidth and rasterization power for 4K. The fact that 4K Low (55.7 FPS) outperforms 4K High (28.5 FPS) by nearly double indicates that the game’s graphical settings have a substantial impact on the GPU load, while the CPU remains unchanged. For a flight simulator, where visual fidelity is important for immersion, the 1440p Medium setting (59.8 FPS) appears to be the sweet spot for this combo, offering a smooth experience without sacrificing too many visual details. The 1080p Ultra setting (51.3 FPS) is also viable, but it shows that even at the lowest resolution, the GPU cannot maintain 60 FPS under maximum load.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 6600 ranks 1433 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 20% of all configurations tested, which reflects the demanding nature of the game. The rank indicates that this pairing is not optimized for this specific title, as many other CPU-GPU combinations deliver higher average FPS. The percentile of the CPU (73rd) and GPU (69th) are both above average individually, but the combo rank is low because the game requires a higher-end GPU to achieve good frame rates. The data shows that the rank is driven primarily by the GPU’s limitations at 1440p and 4K, where the average FPS falls below 45 in most settings.

Compared to other combos in the database, this pairing is likely outmatched by systems with more powerful GPUs, such as those with higher VRAM or faster memory bandwidth. The nearest GPU rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, has a similar average benchmark score, but in this game, the RTX 3060 Ti would likely perform better due to its higher memory bandwidth and more robust compute pipeline. The combo rank of 1433 suggests that users should expect sub-60 FPS at 1440p High settings and below 30 FPS at 4K, which is not ideal for a smooth flight experience. However, the rank also shows that this is not the worst combination, as 362 other combos perform worse, likely due to older or weaker components.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings for this CPU-GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1080p Medium (70.1 FPS) and 1080p High (56.9 FPS) provide the best balance of frame rate and visual quality. At 1440p Medium, the average FPS is 59.8, which is also playable, but 1440p High drops to 41.9 FPS.

Q: How does the i5-10400F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14168, which is 0.4% above the AMD EPYC 7552 (14115) and 0.8% below the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277). It also trails the Intel Core i5-8500 by 1.1% (14332) and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 by 1.2% (14336).

Q: Is the RX 6600’s 8 GB VRAM enough for this game?

A: At 1080p, the 8 GB VRAM is sufficient, as the frame rates are reasonable. However, at 4K, the average FPS drops to 27.4 on Ultra, indicating that the VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s) are inadequate for high-resolution textures and complex scenery.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile and how does it rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6600 is in the 69th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 25235 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 890M (25246, +0%) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (25287, -0.2%). It is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6700M (25180) and 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (25120).

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance more in this game?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, as shown by the sharp FPS drops when resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the CPU can push 95.1 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, the GPU only manages 27.4 FPS, indicating that the RX 6600 cannot keep up with the rendering demands.

Q: What is the combo’s overall rank in the database?

A: This combo ranks 1433 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower 20% of all systems tested.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of how this combo performs across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the Low setting yields an average of 95.1 FPS, Medium yields 70.1 FPS, High yields 56.9 FPS, and Ultra yields 51.3 FPS. This shows a steady decline of about 15-20% per setting step, with the largest drop from Low to Medium (25 FPS). At 2560x1440, the Low setting averages 74.7 FPS, Medium averages 59.8 FPS, High averages 41.9 FPS, and Ultra averages 43.1 FPS. Interestingly, the Ultra setting at 1440p (43.1 FPS) is slightly higher than High (41.9 FPS), which may be due to measurement variance or specific scene complexity. At 3840x2160, the Low setting averages 55.7 FPS, Medium averages 44.8 FPS, High averages 28.5 FPS, and Ultra averages 27.4 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra at 4K is minimal (1.1 FPS), indicating that the GPU is fully saturated at that resolution.

The data shows that the 1080p Low setting is the only configuration that exceeds 90 FPS, making it the smoothest experience. The 1440p Low setting (74.7 FPS) and 1080p Medium (70.1 FPS) are close, but 1440p offers higher resolution at a similar frame rate. The 4K Low setting (55.7 FPS) is surprisingly playable, but it requires sacrificing most graphical features. The Ultra settings at all resolutions are below 60 FPS, with the 4K Ultra (27.4 FPS) being the most demanding. The data indicates that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can maintain playable frame rates across all settings, and 1440p at lower settings for a sharper image. For 4K, only the Low setting provides a playable experience, and even then, it is below 60 FPS.