Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 produces a balanced but resolution-sensitive experience. Benchmark data shows that this combination is capable of smooth gameplay at lower resolutions and settings, but it will require compromises at higher graphical presets to maintain playable frame rates. The measured results indicate a system that is well-suited for high-refresh-rate 1080p flying, but one that will struggle to push 4K Ultra settings, making it a practical choice for simmers who prioritize frame rate over absolute visual fidelity.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, which is typical for a flight simulator that relies heavily on rendering vast landscapes and complex scenery. At 1080p, the combo delivers strong performance, with an average of 111 FPS on Low settings and 65 FPS on High. This suggests that at 1080p the system is not entirely GPU-bound, as the drop from Low to High is significant but still leaves headroom. Moving to 1440p, we see a notable decrease in performance across all settings, with the Low preset dropping to 89 FPS and High to 52 FPS. This indicates that the GPU is beginning to become a limiting factor, as the increased pixel count demands more from the Radeon RX 9060.

At 4K (3840x2160), the scaling hits the hardest. The average FPS for the High preset falls to just 39 FPS, and the Ultra preset bottoms out at 37 FPS. The Low preset at 4K still manages 66 FPS, which is playable, but the gap between Low and High at this resolution is stark. This data strongly suggests that the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the primary bottleneck at 4K, as the raw pixel throughput required exceeds its capabilities for anything above Low settings. The transition from 1080p to 4K on the High preset shows a 40% drop in average FPS, from 65 to 39, which is a substantial loss that highlights the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions.

The scaling behavior is interesting because it shows that the i5-10400F is not the primary constraint at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see more consistent frame rates across different resolutions at the same settings. Instead, the clear and substantial FPS drops with each resolution increase point to the GPU being the limiting component. The data indicates that for a smooth 60 FPS experience, users will need to play at 1080p with High settings or 1440p with Medium or Low settings. At 4K, even the Medium preset only averages 51 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target that many consider the minimum for a comfortable experience.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F and AMD Radeon RX 9060 ranks at 1712 out of 2996 combinations. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all tested systems, indicating that while it is not a bottom-tier performer, it is far from being a top-end configuration. The percentile ranking for the CPU is 68, meaning it outperforms 68% of all CPUs in the database, while the GPU's percentile is 59, outperforming 59% of all GPUs. This suggests that the CPU is relatively stronger than the GPU when compared to their respective peer groups.

When looking at the GPU's nearest rivals, the data shows that the RX 9060 is very closely matched with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, with a negligible deltaPct of -0.7%. This means that in general benchmark scores, the RX 9060 is essentially on par with the RTX 3060 Ti. This is a useful reference point for understanding the GPU's performance class. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E and AMD EPYC 7552, which are enterprise-class processors, but their average scores are nearly identical to the i5-10400F, showing that for gaming, the consumer chip holds its own in general compute benchmarks.

The combo rank of 1712 out of 2996 suggests that while this system can run the game, many other combinations will provide higher frame rates. This is not a top-tier setup for Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the data implies that users with this hardware will need to make more compromises on settings and resolution compared to those with higher-ranked components. The ranking is a direct reflection of the measured FPS results, which show a system that is capable but not exceptional, particularly at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the most comfortable resolution. At 1080p, the system can achieve 65 FPS on High settings and 86 FPS on Medium, providing a good balance between visual quality and smoothness. At 1440p, performance drops significantly, and at 4K, only the Low preset provides a playable frame rate.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: It can, but with significant limitations. At 4K, the average FPS on the Low preset is 66, which is playable. However, the Medium preset drops to 51 FPS, and High and Ultra presets dip to 39 and 37 FPS respectively, which are not ideal for a smooth experience.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck in this combination?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the limiting component, especially at higher resolutions. The significant FPS drops when moving from 1080p to 4K point to the GPU being overwhelmed by the pixel count. The Intel Core i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, appears to be sufficient for the game's engine at these settings.

Q: How does the Radeon RX 9060 compare to its nearest competitor?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 16014, which is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti's score of 16129, a delta of -0.7%. This puts the RX 9060 in the same performance class as the RTX 3060 Ti based on general benchmarks.

Q: What settings provide the most consistent frame rate experience?

A: The data shows that the Medium preset offers the most consistent frame rates, with a reported minimum FPS of 73 at 1080p. While High settings are playable, the Medium preset provides a more stable frame time, which is beneficial for a flight simulator where smoothness is critical.

Q: What is the CPU's single-threaded performance like for this game?

A: The i5-10400F has a single-thread benchmark score of 688 in 3dmark and 1451 in Cinebench R23. These scores are adequate for the game, but the data does not suggest it is a top-tier performer. The CPU's overall ranking at the 68th percentile indicates it is a solid, mid-range option.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at performance across different resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system shows its best performance. The Low preset yields an average of 111 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 86 FPS with a minimum of 73 and maximum of 99 FPS. High settings produce an average of 65 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 62 FPS. This shows that at 1080p, the system is capable of high refresh rates, especially on lower presets.

Stepping up to 2560x1440, performance takes a noticeable hit. The Low preset averages 89 FPS, which is still very smooth. The Medium preset averages 69 FPS with a minimum of 59 and maximum of 80 FPS. The High preset drops to an average of 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50 FPS. This resolution is the middle ground where users must start deciding between visual quality and frame rate, with Medium providing a good balance.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly under heavy load. The Low preset is the only one that provides a comfortably playable experience, with an average of 66 FPS. The Medium preset averages 51 FPS with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 59 FPS, which is borderline. The High and Ultra presets are demanding, with averages of 39 and 37 FPS respectively. These numbers suggest that 4K gaming is only viable at the lowest settings for this combination.

The data also highlights the scaling efficiency. From Low to Ultra at 1080p, the frame rate drops from 111 to 62 FPS, a 44% decrease. At 1440p, the drop is from 89 to 50 FPS, a 44% decrease as well. At 4K, the drop from Low to Ultra is from 66 to 37 FPS, a 44% decrease as well. This consistent scaling pattern indicates that the performance hit from increasing settings is proportional, and the system's relative performance between settings is maintained across resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware depends heavily on the user's target resolution and preference for smoothness versus visual fidelity. For users with a 1080p monitor, the High preset at 65 FPS is a strong choice, offering a good balance of visual quality and performance. However, for those who prioritize a rock-solid frame rate and smoother motion, the Medium preset at 86 FPS is the best option, as it provides a significant FPS boost with a modest reduction in visual detail.

At 1440p, the recommendation is to use the Medium preset, which averages 69 FPS. This setting provides a playable frame rate that is above the 60 FPS threshold and offers better visual quality than Low. The High preset at 52 FPS is playable but may not feel as smooth, especially during demanding moments like flying over dense urban areas. The data suggests that Medium is the sweet spot for 1440p.

For 4K users, the situation is more constrained. The only truly smooth option is the Low preset, which averages 66 FPS. The Medium preset at 51 FPS is an option for those who can tolerate a lower frame rate, but the minimum FPS of 44 may lead to noticeable stutters. It is recommended that 4K users stick to Low settings to ensure a consistently playable experience with this hardware combination.

Ultimately, the data suggests that the Medium preset is the most versatile for this system. It provides a good balance across all resolutions, with playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, and it is the highest preset that remains even remotely playable at 4K. For users with high refresh rate 1080p monitors, the Low preset at 111 FPS is excellent, but for most, Medium offers the best overall experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on 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, and it supports dual-channel DDR4 memory. In this game, the CPU's role is to handle the complex simulation logic, physics calculations, and AI, which are all heavily threaded tasks. The benchmark scores for the CPU show that it is a capable mid-range performer, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10283 and a single-core score of 1451.

The CPU's performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator is adequate, as the measured FPS data shows that it is not the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. The clear FPS drops when moving from 1080p to 4K indicate that the GPU is the limiting factor. However, the CPU's single-thread performance, which is critical for the game's main thread, is a consideration. The 3dmark single-thread score of 688 and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451 suggest that it has sufficient single-thread power to keep up with the GPU at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 111 FPS result at 1080p Low.

The CPU's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth are also relevant for a game like this, which streams large amounts of terrain and scenery data. The data does not show any specific CPU-related bottlenecks, but the percentile ranking of 68 indicates it is better than average. While the i5-10400F is not the strongest CPU on the market, it is well-matched with the RX 9060 for this game at 1080p and 1440p. The combination's rank of 1712 out of 2996 suggests that there are many faster combos, but this pairing is not severely held back by the CPU. The data supports that the CPU is a solid foundation for this GPU, and users can expect to be limited by the graphics card rather than the processor in most scenarios.