Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT places at rank 1371 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This position, which falls in the bottom quarter of the database, reflects a pairing that delivers playable but not exceptional performance in this demanding flight simulator. The combo’s standing is driven by a CPU that sits at the 73rd percentile against all processors and a GPU at the 71st percentile against all graphics cards, yet the game’s heavy simulation workload exposes the limits of both components when pushed to higher settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1371st out of 1795 tested configurations, meaning roughly 76% of tested systems outperform it in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a mid-to-low tier result for a game that heavily taxes both the processor and graphics card simultaneously. The ranking suggests that while this hardware can run the simulator, it will not deliver the high refresh rates or maximum visual fidelity that top-tier combos achieve.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 14168 places it within 1.2% of several close rivals, including the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (0.8% higher), Intel Core i5-8500 (1.1% higher), and AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 (1.2% higher). This clustering indicates the i5-10400F delivers performance squarely in the mainstream desktop range, with no significant advantage over older or lower-tier alternatives. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 27985 similarly places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.1% higher) and AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.4% higher), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 by 0.9% and AMD FirePro S7150 by 1.5%. These margins are small, confirming that the RX 6600 XT performs at a level comparable to previous-generation high-end cards rather than competing with current flagships.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s base clock runs at 1968 MHz, with a game clock of 2359 MHz and a boost clock reaching 2589 MHz. These clock speeds allow the card to maintain solid frame rates in less demanding scenarios, but the simulator’s heavy draw calls and complex scenery can push the GPU to its limits.

The card’s 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units provide a theoretical pixel rate of 165.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 331.4 GTexel/s. The 32 ray accelerators support DirectX 12 Ultimate features, though Microsoft Flight Simulator relies more on traditional rasterization than ray tracing. The GPU’s FP32 performance of 10.60 TFLOPS indicates adequate compute headroom for the simulator’s physics and weather calculations. The 7 nm process node from TSMC allows the card to achieve these results within a 160 W power envelope, using a single 8-pin power connector.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator smoothly at 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1080p with Low settings the combo achieves 101.7 FPS, and at Medium settings it maintains 75.8 FPS. High settings drop to 57.6 FPS, while Ultra falls to 54 FPS, so smoother play is possible at lower presets.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-10400F scores 14168 on average, which is 0.4% lower than the AMD EPYC 7552, 0.8% lower than the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, 1.1% lower than the Intel Core i5-8500, and 1.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546.

Q: What is the GPU’s closest competitor in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The RX 6600 XT scores 27985 on average, placing it 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti and 0.4% below the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, while sitting 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM limit performance at 4K resolution?

A: The data shows a significant drop at 3840x2160, with High settings yielding only 34.5 FPS and Ultra dropping to 31 FPS. The 8 GB frame buffer appears to constrain performance at this resolution, as even Low settings only reach 56.6 FPS.

Q: How do frame rates scale across resolutions at Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 the combo delivers 75.8 FPS, dropping to 61 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 49 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 19.5% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 35.4% drop from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bigger bottleneck in this game?

A: The resolution scaling suggests the GPU becomes the primary limiter at higher resolutions, given the sharp FPS drops at 4K. At 1080p, the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads likely handle the simulation logic adequately, but the GPU’s workload increases disproportionately with resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its strongest results. Low settings deliver 101.7 FPS, which is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play. Medium settings yield 75.8 FPS, still providing a fluid experience. High settings drop to 57.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 54 FPS, both remaining playable but with noticeable dips during busy scenes over cities or complex terrain.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance degrades predictably. Low settings produce 77.9 FPS, maintaining smoothness, while Medium drops to 61 FPS. High settings yield 44.7 FPS, which begins to feel less responsive, and Ultra reaches 45.2 FPS, showing that the GPU is struggling to keep up with the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the combo clearly hits its limits. Low settings achieve 56.6 FPS, which is borderline acceptable, but Medium drops to 49 FPS, High falls to 34.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 31 FPS. These numbers indicate that 4K gaming with this hardware requires significant compromises on visual quality to maintain playable frame rates.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate progression from 1080p to 4K reveals where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, FPS drops from 101.7 at 1080p to 77.9 at 1440p (a 23.4% decrease) and then to 56.6 at 4K (a 44.3% decrease from 1080p). At Medium settings, the drop is from 75.8 to 61 (19.5%) and then to 49 (35.4%). High settings show a steeper decline: 57.6 to 44.7 (22.4%) and then to 34.5 (40.1%). Ultra settings follow a similar pattern, going from 54 to 45.2 (16.3%) and then to 31 (42.6%).

The consistent pattern of roughly 20% drops from 1080p to 1440p and 35-44% drops from 1080p to 4K indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint at higher resolutions. The RX 6600 XT’s 8 GB VRAM and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient to maintain frame rates as pixel count increases. In contrast, the CPU’s workload remains relatively constant across resolutions, suggesting that the i5-10400F has enough headroom to feed the GPU at 1080p but cannot compensate for the GPU’s rendering limitations at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F provides six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth support the simulator’s need for rapid data access. The CPU’s 3DMark scores show scaling from 1350 with two threads to 4735 with max threads, indicating that the twelve threads are effectively utilized in multi-threaded workloads.

In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 10297 in multicore and 1453 in single-core, while Geekbench shows 5783 multicore and 1454 single-core. PassMark multithread results reach 12115, with single-thread at 2541. These scores position the CPU at the 73rd percentile, meaning it outperforms 73% of all tested processors. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for simulation logic, the 1453 Cinebench single-core score suggests adequate but not exceptional capability. The 3DMark single-thread score of 688 confirms this, showing the CPU can handle the game’s core simulation tasks without becoming a severe bottleneck at lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The data supports a clear hierarchy for optimal play. At 1920x1080, Medium settings provide the best balance, delivering 75.8 FPS while retaining enough visual detail for an immersive flight experience. High settings at 57.6 FPS are playable but risk dips during busy airport approaches, while Ultra at 54 FPS offers marginal visual gains for a noticeable performance cost. Low settings at 101.7 FPS are smooth but sacrifice the visual fidelity that makes the simulator engaging.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings again emerge as the best choice, achieving 61 FPS. This maintains a stable frame rate while providing reasonable detail. Low settings at 77.9 FPS offer smoother performance but reduce visual quality, while High and Ultra both fall below 46 FPS, making them less desirable for sustained play.

At 3840x2160, the combo cannot maintain ideal performance at any setting. Low settings at 56.6 FPS are the only option approaching smoothness, but even this requires significant visual compromises. Medium at 49 FPS is playable but inconsistent, while High and Ultra at 34.5 and 31 FPS respectively are too choppy for a satisfying experience. For 4K users, the recommendation is to prioritize Low settings or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a better experience.