Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured data shows that the Medium preset delivers the most balanced experience across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Medium produces 73.5 FPS, which is 24% higher than High's 59 FPS and 41% higher than Ultra's 52.2 FPS, while only sacrificing 23% of the frame rate compared to Low's 95.3 FPS. The gap between Medium and High narrows at higher resolutions but remains consistent: at 2560x1440, Medium hits 61.9 FPS versus High's 43.2 FPS, a 43% advantage. At 3840x2160, Medium delivers 44.3 FPS, which is 31% faster than High's 33.7 FPS.

The Ultra preset is not recommended for this combination. Across all three resolutions, Ultra only marginally outperforms High—at 4K, Ultra's 33.8 FPS is statistically identical to High's 33.7 FPS, and at 1440p, Ultra's 45.8 FPS is just 6% above High's 43.2 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional graphical demands yield negligible returns for this hardware pairing.

For users prioritizing smoothness over visual fidelity, Low provides the only consistently high-frame-rate option: 95.3 FPS at 1080p, 78.4 FPS at 1440p, and 57.6 FPS at 4K. However, given that flight simulation benefits from visual detail for situational awareness, Medium represents the optimal compromise—it maintains playable frame rates at 1440p (61.9 FPS) while keeping 4K above 40 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. Its base clock runs at 2.90 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The CPU's benchmark profile shows a significant scaling from 2-thread to multi-thread workloads: 3DMark scores jump from 1350 (2 threads) to 3929 (8 threads) and 4735 (max threads), indicating that the processor benefits substantially from using all 12 threads in demanding scenarios.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role becomes evident when examining the frame rate scaling with resolution changes. At Low settings, moving from 1080p to 1440p drops FPS by 17.7% (from 95.3 to 78.4), while moving from 1440p to 4K drops another 26.5% (from 78.4 to 57.6). This relatively modest resolution penalty at Low settings suggests the CPU is keeping pace with the GPU's output. However, the processor's single-thread performance places it at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1453. This matters because flight simulators often have significant single-threaded components for physics and flight model calculations.

The CPU's nearest rival data shows it trades blows with older server and mobile parts: it sits 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552 and 1.1% behind the Intel Core i5-8500. This mid-pack positioning means the i5-10400F is competent but not exceptional for this workload, and the measured FPS results suggest it is not the primary bottleneck at higher settings.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B580 features the BMG-G21 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, with 19,600 million transistors across a 272 mm² die. It packs 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with 20 ray tracing cores. The GPU's memory subsystem is substantial: 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivers 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The GPU runs at a fixed 2670 MHz base and boost clock.

The Arc B580's compute capabilities are notable: FP32 throughput reaches 13.67 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 27.34 TFLOPS. In benchmark results, it scores 15748 in PassMark G3D and 109672 in GeekBench Vulkan. Its percentile ranking places it at 66 among all GPUs, which is solidly mid-range. The nearest rival data shows it sits just 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, and 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M—indicating the B580 is competitively positioned against established mid-range options.

The GPU's role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is clear from the resolution scaling data. At High settings, moving from 1080p (59 FPS) to 1440p (43.2 FPS) represents a 26.8% drop, and from 1440p to 4K (33.7 FPS) another 22% drop. This steep scaling at High and Ultra settings indicates the GPU is the limiting component when visual fidelity is prioritized. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for the measured presets, as no texture-related stutters would explain the FPS pattern.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B580 ranks 1387 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 22.7th percentile of all combos. This ranking reflects the pairing's mid-range positioning: the CPU sits at the 73rd CPU percentile, and the GPU at the 66th GPU percentile, but their combined performance in this flight simulator is comparatively lower.

The ranking suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly demanding on this hardware pairing. While the GPU's nearest rival (RTX 4060) is only 0.7% ahead in average benchmark scores, the measured FPS at Ultra settings (52.2 FPS at 1080p) indicates that this game pushes the combination harder than synthetic benchmarks would suggest. The combo's rank position, below the midpoint of all tested configurations, implies that users should expect to use Medium settings for a comfortable experience, as the data shows this preset provides the best balance of visual quality and frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling pattern reveals a clear GPU-bound scenario at higher settings. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 95.3 FPS at 1080p to 78.4 FPS at 1440p (a 17.7% reduction) and then to 57.6 FPS at 4K (a further 26.5% reduction). This total 39.6% drop from 1080p to 4K is relatively moderate, suggesting that at Low settings, the CPU is still contributing meaningfully to overall performance.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is steeper: 52.2 FPS at 1080p drops to 45.8 FPS at 1440p (12.3% reduction) and then to 33.8 FPS at 4K (26.2% reduction). The total 35.2% drop from 1080p to 4K at Ultra is similar to Low, but the absolute frame rates are much lower, indicating the GPU is the primary constraint. The High preset shows the most aggressive scaling: 59 FPS at 1080p down to 33.7 FPS at 4K, a 42.9% total reduction.

The data indicates that the limiting component shifts with settings. At Low, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads can feed the GPU adequately, resulting in a smoother resolution curve. At High and Ultra, the GPU's mid-range positioning (66th percentile) becomes the bottleneck, as the 2670 MHz clock and 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 throughput cannot maintain frame rates as resolution increases.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this CPU/GPU combo?

A: Medium provides the best balance, delivering 73.5 FPS at 1080p, 61.9 FPS at 1440p, and 44.3 FPS at 4K. Ultra offers minimal gains over High (33.8 vs 33.7 FPS at 4K) and is not recommended.

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming?

A: At Medium settings, 1080p delivers 73.5 FPS and 1440p delivers 61.9 FPS. Both are playable, but 1080p provides a 18.7% higher frame rate. At 4K Medium, 44.3 FPS is marginally playable but not ideal for a flight simulator.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B580 compare to the RTX 4060?

A: In average benchmark scores, the Arc B580 is 0.7% behind the RTX 4060, with scores of 23021 and 23181 respectively. This places them in the same performance tier.

Q: Is the i5-10400F holding back the Arc B580?

A: At Low settings, the CPU appears adequate, as resolution scaling is moderate. At High and Ultra, the GPU becomes the bottleneck. The CPU's single-thread score (1453 in Cinebench R23) is sufficient for this game, but its 73rd percentile ranking means it is not a high-end part.

Q: What is the 4K performance like?

A: At Medium settings, 4K delivers 44.3 FPS. Low settings achieve 57.6 FPS at 4K, while High and Ultra drop to 33.7 and 33.8 FPS respectively. For 4K play, Medium or Low is recommended.

Q: How many cores does the CPU have and does it matter?

A: The i5-10400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. Benchmark data shows strong scaling from 2 threads (1350 in 3DMark) to 8 threads (3929), indicating the game can utilize multiple cores, but the processor's mid-range position means it is not a top-tier choice.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 95.3 FPS
• Medium: 73.5 FPS
• High: 59 FPS
• Ultra: 52.2 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 78.4 FPS
• Medium: 61.9 FPS
• High: 43.2 FPS
• Ultra: 45.8 FPS

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 57.6 FPS
• Medium: 44.3 FPS
• High: 33.7 FPS
• Ultra: 33.8 FPS

The data shows that at 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 43.1 FPS (95.3 vs 52.2), representing an 82.6% difference. At 1440p, this gap narrows to 32.6 FPS (78.4 vs 45.8), and at 4K it narrows further to 23.8 FPS (57.6 vs 33.8). This convergence at higher resolutions confirms the GPU becomes the limiting factor as pixel count increases, while at 1080p the CPU and GPU work more evenly. The Ultra preset at 1440p (45.8 FPS) outperforms High at the same resolution (43.2 FPS) by 6%, but at 4K they are effectively identical (33.8 vs 33.7 FPS), suggesting the Ultra preset's additional load provides no benefit at that resolution.