Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT delivers a balanced 1080p and 1440p experience, though 4K requires compromise. The data shows this combo ranks 876th out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the 49th percentile of all tested systems—a solidly mid-pack result that prioritizes playable frame rates over maximum visual fidelity. The RX 6750 XT, with its 12 GB of VRAM and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, handles the game's vast scenery streaming, but the CPU's six cores and 4.30 GHz boost clock become a notable factor at lower resolutions where frame rates climb above 100 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The data indicates 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At High settings, the combo achieves 59.9 FPS, which is smooth, while 1920x1080 pushes to 72.3 FPS at the same settings. 4K at High settings dips to 42.1 FPS, which is playable but close to the edge of acceptable smoothness.

Q: How does the CPU affect performance in this game?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system hits 124.8 FPS, indicating the CPU is capable of high frame rates. However, its single-thread performance, shown by a 3dmark_single_thread score of 688, can limit maximum FPS in a simulation-heavy title like this.

Q: Is the GPU's VRAM sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. This capacity is ample for the game's high-resolution textures, as evidenced by the 58 FPS average at 4K Medium settings, which suggests the GPU has enough memory headroom to handle the load without stuttering.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 876th out of 1795 total combinations in this game. This places it in the middle of the field, suggesting it offers a competent but not top-tier experience. The GPU is rated at the 79th percentile, while the CPU sits at the 73rd percentile, indicating both components are similarly matched.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, switching from Low to Ultra results in a significant performance drop from 100.8 FPS to 56.9 FPS. This 43.9 FPS difference highlights the substantial graphical load of Ultra settings, which pushes the GPU harder while the CPU remains a constant factor.

Q: Should I use High or Ultra settings for the best experience?

A: The data strongly favors High settings. At 1440p, High yields 59.9 FPS compared to Ultra's 56.9 FPS, a negligible difference. At 1080p, High delivers 72.3 FPS versus Ultra's 70.9 FPS. High settings offer nearly identical performance with a reduced graphical load, making it the more efficient choice.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark data clearly indicates that the High preset provides the optimal balance between visual quality and performance for this hardware combination. At High settings, the system achieves 72.3 FPS at 1920x1080, 59.9 FPS at 2560x1440, and 42.1 FPS at 3840x2160. These frame rates are all playable, with the 1440p result being particularly smooth for a flight simulator where precision matters.

Ultra settings offer little benefit. At 1080p, Ultra produces 70.9 FPS, which is only 1.4 FPS lower than High, but the visual improvement is often imperceptible in motion. At 1440p, the gap widens slightly to 3 FPS (56.9 vs 59.9), but this still does not justify the increased graphical overhead. The Medium preset, while achieving 100.5 FPS at 1080p, sacrifices too much visual detail for a game that relies heavily on scenery immersion.

For users with a 1440p monitor, High settings are the clear recommendation, delivering close to 60 FPS. For 1080p users, High is again the best choice, as it maintains over 70 FPS while preserving the game's visual fidelity. The Low preset is only viable for competitive play or systems with severe thermal constraints, as it yields 124.8 FPS at 1080p but strips away the atmospheric detail that defines this title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT achieves a rank of 876 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This mid-pack placement indicates that while the system is capable, it does not excel in this specific title compared to other hardware pairings. The GPU's percentile of 79 and the CPU's percentile of 73 suggest both components are performing near their expected levels, but the game's unique demands prevent a higher overall ranking.

This rank is influenced by the game's heavy reliance on both single-thread IPC and raw GPU throughput. The CPU's 3dmark_max_threads score of 4735 shows decent multi-threading, but its single-thread score of 688 is more critical for flight simulation logic. The GPU's passmark_g3d score of 20700 indicates strong rasterization performance. The combination of these factors places the system in the middle of the pack, ahead of lower-tier setups but behind high-end configurations with faster CPUs and GPUs.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system demonstrates its peak performance. Low settings produce an average of 124.8 FPS, while Medium delivers 100.5 FPS. High settings yield 72.3 FPS, and Ultra drops slightly to 70.9 FPS. The small gap between High and Ultra (1.4 FPS) suggests the CPU begins to limit performance at this resolution, as the GPU has spare capacity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU becomes more stressed. Low settings average 100.8 FPS, Medium hits 79.3 FPS, High achieves 59.9 FPS, and Ultra falls to 56.9 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p shows a consistent reduction in frame rates across all settings, with the High preset losing 12.4 FPS and the Ultra preset losing 14 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is the primary bottleneck. Low settings still manage 71.2 FPS, but Medium drops to 58 FPS. High settings yield 42.1 FPS, and Ultra produces 43.3 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra performs slightly better than High at 4K, which may indicate a driver or optimization quirk, but both are below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process node from TSMC. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for streaming the game's high-resolution terrain and aircraft textures. The GPU's boost clock of 2600 MHz and game clock of 2495 MHz allow it to handle the pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s.

The GPU's role becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 4K, the system's frame rates drop significantly across all settings, with High settings falling to 42.1 FPS. This indicates the GPU's 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is taxed heavily by the game's complex lighting and shadow calculations. The 40 RT cores are present but do not appear to be a major factor in this title's standard rendering path.

The GPU's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, has an avgScore of 35264, which is only 0.2% lower than the RX 6750 XT's 35327. This close margin suggests that the RX 6750 XT is performing exactly as expected for its class, with no significant driver or thermal issues affecting its output.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, provides a solid foundation for this flight simulator. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz allow for responsive single-thread performance, which is crucial for the game's physics and flight model calculations. The 12 MB of shared L3 cache helps reduce latency when accessing frequently used data.

The CPU's influence is most visible at 1080p where frame rates exceed 100 FPS. At Low settings, the system reaches 124.8 FPS, but this is likely near the CPU's practical limit for this game engine. The 3dmark_single_thread score of 688 and the passmark_single_thread score of 2541 both indicate moderate single-core capability, which may cap maximum frame rates in less GPU-bound scenarios.

At higher resolutions, the CPU's role diminishes as the GPU becomes the bottleneck. The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities, shown by a cinebench_r23_multicore score of 10297, ensure that background processes and asset streaming do not cause stutters. The 65 W TDP also means the CPU does not thermally throttle, maintaining consistent performance across long flight sessions.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a clear shift in the system's bottleneck. At 1080p High settings, the system averages 72.3 FPS. Moving to 1440p reduces this to 59.9 FPS, a 17.2% decrease. At 4K, the frame rate drops to 42.1 FPS, a further 29.7% reduction from 1440p. This progressive decline indicates that the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor as resolution increases.

At Low settings, the scaling is more dramatic. The system achieves 124.8 FPS at 1080p, 100.8 FPS at 1440p, and 71.2 FPS at 4K. The jump from 1080p to 4K represents a 43% performance loss, which is substantial but still leaves the game playable. This suggests that even at low graphical fidelity, the GPU struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K due to the sheer number of pixels being rendered.

The data shows that the CPU is the primary limiter at 1080p, particularly at lower settings where the GPU has headroom. As resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows, and the CPU becomes less of a bottleneck. For users seeking the highest frame rates, 1080p is the optimal resolution, while 1440p offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, given the 59.9 FPS result at High settings.