Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core i5-10400F + AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

This combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT delivers strong, playable performance across all tested resolutions in Microsoft Flight Simulator, though the data reveals a clear pattern: the GPU is the dominant factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU begins to assert itself at 1080p. The combo ranks 638th out of 1,795 tested combinations, placing it in the upper third of all systems, with a GPU that sits in the 87th percentile of all GPUs and a CPU in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs. The measured frames per second range from a low of 49.2 at 4K Ultra to a high of 136.2 at 1080p Low, indicating a wide operational envelope depending on user preferences.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and consistent across all settings presets, pointing to the GPU as the primary limiter at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 90.3 at 1920x1080 to 73.1 at 2560x1440, then further to 50.1 at 3840x2160 — a cumulative reduction of 44.5% from 1080p to 4K. The scaling pattern is similar for Ultra settings, where the system delivers 84.5 FPS at 1080p, 67.5 FPS at 1440p, and 49.2 FPS at 4K, representing a 41.8% drop across the resolution range.

The Low preset shows the most dramatic scaling, with 136.2 FPS at 1080p dropping to 121.5 FPS at 1440p and then 87.7 FPS at 4K. The 4K-to-1080p ratio here is 0.64, meaning the system retains about two-thirds of its performance when moving to four times the pixel count. This is a classic GPU-bound signature. At Medium settings, the drop from 119.3 FPS at 1080p to 72.0 FPS at 4K represents a 39.6% reduction, again consistent with pixel-throughput limitations rather than CPU bottlenecks.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra settings is 51.7 FPS, while at 4K that gap narrows to 38.5 FPS. This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions further confirms that the RX 6800 XT becomes the limiting component as resolution increases, with the CPU's influence waning.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, brings substantial resources to this flight simulator. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for the texture-heavy environments of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's boost clock of 2250 MHz and game clock of 2015 MHz, combined with 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units, deliver a peak FP32 throughput of 20.74 TFLOPS.

The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce its position: it achieves a Passmark G3D score of 24,980 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 154,506, placing it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti SUPER at a 2.6% higher score and the Intel Arc A550M at 0.5% higher. The GPU's 72 ray accelerators support DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is relevant for modern rendering features in the simulator.

In practical terms, the 4K Ultra result of 49.2 FPS is the only measured configuration below 50 FPS, indicating that the GPU can handle the simulator's highest visual fidelity at 4K, though just barely. The 16 GB VRAM capacity is not stressed by this game's typical asset loads, and the 512.0 GB/s bandwidth supports smooth texture streaming during flight. The GPU's Passmark DirectX 12 score of 100 relative to its DirectX 11 score of 264 suggests that the card's DX12 performance is not its strongest metric, but the measured FPS numbers show it is still capable in this DX12-capable title.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of the Core i5-10400F and Radeon RX 6800 XT sits at rank 638 out of 1,795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 64.5th percentile of all combos. This ranking is notable because the individual components rank higher on their own — the GPU at 87th percentile and the CPU at 73rd percentile — suggesting that the combination does not achieve the full potential of either part in this specific title.

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score provide context for its contribution. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 0.4% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 0.8% lower, the Intel Core i5-8500 scores 1.1% lower, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 scores 1.2% lower. These are all closely matched scores, indicating the i5-10400F is a mid-pack performer in synthetic benchmarks. The GPU's nearest rivals show a similar tight grouping, with the Intel Arc A550M 0.5% higher, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 1.7% lower, the NVIDIA CMP 50HX 1.9% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 2.6% higher.

The gap between this combo's rank and the individual component percentiles implies that Microsoft Flight Simulator's specific workload characteristics — heavy single-threaded simulation logic combined with GPU-intensive rendering — do not allow this pairing to fully leverage its hardware. The combo rank of 638 out of 1,795 means there are 1,157 tested combinations that perform worse, but also 637 that perform better, placing this system firmly in the upper-middle tier of the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates across all presets. Low settings produce 136.2 FPS, Medium settings yield 119.3 FPS, High settings achieve 90.3 FPS, and Ultra settings manage 84.5 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 51.7 FPS, and even at Ultra, the frame rate is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong but shows the expected decline. Low settings deliver 121.5 FPS, Medium settings produce 93.1 FPS, High settings achieve 73.1 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 67.5 FPS. The spread narrows slightly to 54.0 FPS, and all presets remain above 60 FPS, making 1440p a viable resolution for this combo at any settings level.

At 3840x2160, the system begins to show its limits. Low settings still deliver a respectable 87.7 FPS, and Medium settings produce 72.0 FPS. However, High settings drop to 50.1 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 49.2 FPS. These sub-60 FPS results at the higher presets indicate that 4K gaming requires either lower settings or acceptance of reduced frame rates. The 4K Ultra result of 49.2 FPS is the only configuration in the entire dataset that falls below 50 FPS.

The scaling from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows interesting patterns. At 1080p, Ultra is 38.0% slower than Low; at 1440p, Ultra is 44.4% slower; at 4K, Ultra is 43.9% slower. This consistency across resolutions suggests that the settings presets scale similarly regardless of pixel count, with the GPU handling the additional load at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 offers the best balance, with all four settings presets delivering above 60 FPS — from 121.5 FPS at Low to 67.5 FPS at Ultra. At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 84 FPS, while 3840x2160 drops below 60 FPS at High and Ultra settings.

Q: How does the RX 6800 XT compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 49,982 places it 0.5% below the Intel Arc A550M, 1.7% below the NVIDIA RTX A1000, 1.9% above the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, and 2.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER. It ranks in the 87th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Is the Core i5-10400F a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The 1080p Low result of 136.2 FPS compared to the 4K Low result of 87.7 FPS suggests the CPU can push high frame rates when the GPU is less stressed. The CPU's single-thread benchmark scores — 688 in 3DMark single-thread and 1,453 in Cinebench R23 single-core — are modest, but the measured FPS shows no severe bottleneck at 1080p.

Q: What is the worst-performing configuration in the dataset?

A: The 4K Ultra preset produces the lowest average FPS at 49.2 FPS. This is the only configuration below 50 FPS, and it represents a 63.9% reduction from the best-performing 1080p Low result of 136.2 FPS.

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

A: The combination ranks 638th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the upper third of all systems, though below what the individual component percentiles (GPU 87th, CPU 73rd) might suggest.

Q: Does the GPU's 16 GB VRAM matter for this game?

A: The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's typical requirements. No measured configuration shows VRAM-related performance drops, and the GPU's Passmark G3D score of 24,980 confirms strong overall graphics capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing frame rate at 1920x1080, the Low preset at 136.2 FPS provides maximum smoothness, but the Medium preset at 119.3 FPS offers a better visual experience while still maintaining well above 60 FPS. The Ultra preset at 84.5 FPS is also viable for those who want maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing playability.

At 2560x1440, the High preset at 73.1 FPS represents the best balance of visual quality and performance. The Ultra preset at 67.5 FPS remains above 60 FPS and is a reasonable choice for users with high-refresh-rate displays who accept slightly lower frame rates. The Medium preset at 93.1 FPS is the best option for users who prioritize smoothness over visual detail.

At 3840x2160, the Medium preset at 72.0 FPS is the clear recommendation for playable performance. The Low preset at 87.7 FPS offers even higher frame rates, but the visual compromise may be significant for a game known for its graphics. The High and Ultra presets at 50.1 and 49.2 FPS respectively are only suitable for users who accept sub-60 FPS gameplay or have variable refresh rate displays that can mask the frame rate fluctuations.

The data indicates that the Medium preset provides the most consistent experience across all resolutions, with frame rates of 119.3 FPS at 1080p, 93.1 FPS at 1440p, and 72.0 FPS at 4K. This preset never drops below 70 FPS at any tested resolution, making it the safest choice for users who want to maintain high performance regardless of their display resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F, a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture, operates at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth provide adequate throughput for the simulator's simulation and physics calculations. The CPU's benchmark scores show a clear multithreading advantage: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 10,297 versus 1,453 single-core, and 3DMark scores scale from 688 single-thread to 4,748 at 16 threads.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 73rd among all CPUs indicates it is above average, but its nearest rivals reveal a tight cluster. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 0.4% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, Intel Core i5-8500, and AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 score between 0.8% and 1.2% lower. This grouping suggests that the i5-10400F's performance is representative of a broad mid-range segment.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is evident in the resolution scaling data. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 136.2 FPS, which is close to the practical limit for this processor given its single-thread performance. The fact that 1080p Ultra (84.5 FPS) is only 38.0% slower than 1080p Low (136.2 FPS) indicates that the GPU is still the primary factor even at lower resolutions. However, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, combined with its boost clock of 4.30 GHz, are sufficient to feed the RX 6800 XT without creating a severe bottleneck, as evidenced by the strong 1080p results. The CPU's Passmark multithread score of 12,115 and Geekbench multicore score of 5,783 confirm it can handle the simulator's background simulation tasks while the GPU focuses on rendering.