Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT lands at rank 970 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it near the middle of the database. This percentile position suggests a balanced pairing, but the measured FPS data reveals significant bottlenecks and scaling quirks that tell a more nuanced story. The combo is not a top-tier performer, yet it is far from the bottom, indicating that it can handle the game but with notable compromises at higher settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 970 out of 1795 places it in the 54th percentile of all tested combinations, meaning slightly more than half of the tested systems outperform it. This is a middling result for a CPU that sits in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs and a GPU in the 77th percentile among all GPUs. The gap between the individual component percentiles and the combo’s overall rank suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator is not fully utilizing the hardware’s potential, or that the pairing creates a specific constraint. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7552 (0.4% ahead) and the Intel Core i5-8500 (1.1% behind), while the GPU’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (0.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (1.3% behind). These small deltas in synthetic benchmarks do not translate to a high in-game rank, implying that the game’s engine is highly sensitive to factors beyond raw compute, such as single-thread performance and memory bandwidth.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Its synthetic benchmarks show a single-thread score of 688 in 3dmark and a multicore score of 4748 in 3dmark_16_threads, while Cinebench R23 results are 1453 single-core and 10297 multi-core. These numbers indicate a solid mid-range CPU, but Microsoft Flight Simulator is notoriously dependent on single-core performance for its simulation logic and draw-call processing. The data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 123.6 FPS, which is the highest measured result across all settings and resolutions. This suggests that at low graphical loads, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately. However, the percentile rank of 73 for the CPU versus the combo’s 54th percentile overall hints that the CPU might be the limiting factor when the GPU is not stressed, as seen in the relatively small FPS differences between 1080p and 1440p at High settings (70 FPS vs 57.5 FPS). The 12 threads and 4.30 GHz boost are sufficient for the game’s core logic, but the data implies that higher thread counts or faster single-core clocks would push the rank higher.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT is a RDNA 2.0 architecture GPU with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clocks are base 2321 MHz, game 2424 MHz, and boost 2581 MHz, with a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 13.21 TFLOPS, and it has 2560 shading units. In synthetic tests, it scores 19786 in Passmark G3D and 108032 in Geekbench Vulkan. The GPU’s 77th percentile ranking among all GPUs is respectable, but its in-game performance shows clear limits. At 4K Ultra, the combo drops to 36.7 FPS, while at 4K Low it reaches 70.8 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily stressed by higher resolutions and settings. The 12 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for the game’s textures, but the bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s appears to be a constraint at 4K, where the FPS drops by more than half from Low to Ultra (70.8 to 36.7). The GPU’s nearest rival, the RX 6800, is only 0.7% faster in synthetic benchmarks, yet the in-game data suggests that the RX 6700 XT’s memory bus width (192-bit vs the 6800’s wider bus) could be a differentiator in this title, though such specs are not in the fact pack for the rival.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain 60 FPS?

A: At 1440p Medium, the combo achieves 73.9 FPS, and at 1440p High it drops to 57.5 FPS. The data shows that 1440p Medium is the highest resolution and setting combination that stays above 60 FPS, while 1080p Ultra reaches 67 FPS.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K with the Ultra preset?

A: The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 36.7, which is below the 40.5 FPS seen at 4K High. This indicates that the Ultra preset demands more from the GPU than it can deliver comfortably at 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more limiting at 1080p Low?

A: At 1080p Low, the combo hits 123.6 FPS, which is the highest score in the dataset. Given that the CPU’s 3dmark single-thread score is 688, this result suggests the CPU is not a bottleneck at low settings, and the GPU is capable of high frame rates when not constrained by graphical load.

Q: What settings should be avoided for a smooth experience?

A: The 4K Ultra preset at 36.7 FPS and the 4K High preset at 40.5 FPS are both below 60 FPS. The data shows that 4K Medium (57 FPS) is marginal, so users should stick to 1440p or lower for consistent performance.

Q: How does the combo’s rank compare to its component percentiles?

A: The CPU is in the 73rd percentile, the GPU in the 77th, but the combo ranks 970 out of 1795 (54th percentile). This discrepancy indicates that the pairing underperforms relative to its individual parts, likely due to game-specific bottlenecks.

Q: Does lowering resolution from 1440p to 1080p help at High settings?

A: Yes, the FPS increases from 57.5 at 1440p High to 70 at 1080p High, a gain of 12.5 FPS. This shows a moderate scaling, suggesting that the GPU is not the sole limiter at these settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals a clear pattern of FPS drops as resolution increases, but the magnitude varies by settings. At Low settings, the FPS goes from 123.6 at 1080p to 96 at 1440p (a 22.3% drop) and then to 70.8 at 4K (a 26.3% drop from 1440p). This indicates that at Low settings, the GPU has headroom, and the CPU is likely the primary driver, as the FPS remains high even at 4K. At Medium settings, the FPS drops from 95.7 at 1080p to 73.9 at 1440p (22.8% drop) and then to 57 at 4K (22.9% drop), showing consistent scaling that points to a balanced load. However, at High settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 17.9% (70 to 57.5), but from 1440p to 4K it is 29.6% (57.5 to 40.5), suggesting that the GPU becomes more of a limiting factor at higher resolutions. The Ultra preset shows the steepest decline: from 67 at 1080p to 57.2 at 1440p (14.6% drop) and then to 36.7 at 4K (35.8% drop). This pattern implies that the RX 6700 XT’s memory bandwidth and compute power are insufficient for 4K Ultra, but the CPU can handle the simulation logic at lower resolutions without becoming a bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience per the measured rows, the 1440p Medium preset offers the optimal balance, delivering 73.9 FPS with a 22.8% drop from 1080p Medium’s 95.7 FPS. This is the highest FPS above 60 at a resolution above 1080p. If a user prefers 1080p, the High preset at 70 FPS is a solid choice, but the Ultra preset at 67 FPS provides a marginal improvement in visual quality for only a 4.3% FPS loss, making it a viable option. At 4K, the Medium preset at 57 FPS is the only setting that approaches playability, but it falls short of 60 FPS, so users should consider lowering resolution or accepting the trade-off. The data shows that the Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution above 1080p, as it consistently produces the lowest FPS (67 at 1080p, 57.2 at 1440p, 36.7 at 4K) with diminishing returns. Overall, 1440p Medium is the sweet spot for this combo, offering a clear FPS advantage over High and Ultra while maintaining visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full dataset provides a comprehensive view of the combo’s performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 123.6 FPS, Medium reaches 95.7 FPS, High hits 70 FPS, and Ultra drops to 67 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset yields 96 FPS, Medium 73.9 FPS, High 57.5 FPS, and Ultra 57.2 FPS. At 3840x2160, the numbers are significantly lower: Low runs at 70.8 FPS, Medium at 57 FPS, High at 40.5 FPS, and Ultra at 36.7 FPS. The largest single jump in performance occurs between 1080p Low (123.6) and 1080p Medium (95.7), a 22.6% drop, while the smallest drop is between 1440p High (57.5) and 1440p Ultra (57.2), a mere 0.5% difference. This near-identical result at 1440p suggests that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are not taxing the GPU heavily at this resolution, but the CPU might be capping performance. At 4K, the drop from High to Ultra is 9.4%, indicating the GPU is fully saturated. The data also shows that the difference between 1440p High and 4K Low is 18.8% (57.5 vs 70.8), which highlights that resolution scaling is not linear and that the GPU’s 12 GB memory and 384 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 4K Low but not for higher settings.