Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data shows that the Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti delivers a playable but constrained experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with performance heavily dependent on resolution and settings. This combination ranks 1570th out of 1795 tested combos in this title, placing it in the lower half of the field, which aligns with the GPU's 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs and the CPU's 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of GPU limitation as resolution increases. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the combo produces 43.4 FPS, while dropping to Low settings yields 77.9 FPS. Moving to 1440p, the Ultra preset falls to 36.9 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, the average drops to 23.4 FPS — a figure that falls below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K is steep. At High settings, the transition from 1080p (46.6 FPS) to 1440p (36.2 FPS) represents a 22% drop, and then to 4K (25.9 FPS) another 28% reduction. This near-linear decline with pixel count indicates the GTX 1660 Ti is the primary bottleneck; the i5-10400F's six cores and twelve threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at these loads. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10297 and single-core score of 1453 suggest it has ample headroom for flight simulation's physics and scenery processing.

At 4K, even the Low preset only manages 46.2 FPS, which is barely above the 1080p High result of 46.6 FPS. This clustering of low-resolution and low-settings scores points to a hard ceiling imposed by the GPU's 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The 192-bit memory bus and 6 GB of GDDR6 VRAM are adequate for 1080p but become strained at 4K, where the texture streaming demands of a flight sim escalate rapidly.

The data suggests that for 1440p gaming, users should expect to use Medium settings (49.1 FPS) or Low (61.4 FPS) to maintain fluid frame rates. At 1080p, the situation is more forgiving, with Medium (62.8 FPS) and High (46.6 FPS) both viable, though Ultra still dips below 45 FPS.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo handle 4K resolution at any setting?

A: No. The best 4K result is 46.2 FPS at Low settings, which drops to 34.9 FPS at Medium, 25.9 FPS at High, and 23.4 FPS at Ultra. Only the Low preset approaches playability, and even that is marginal for a flight simulator where smooth panning is critical.

Q: What is the maximum FPS this combination achieves?

A: The peak measured average is 77.9 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the dataset that exceeds 75 FPS, indicating that high refresh rate monitors are only usable with reduced graphical fidelity.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 13925 places it 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 570X and 0.8% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and GeForce GTX 680. It trails the NVIDIA Tesla K10 by 0.7%, making it statistically equivalent to all four rivals in synthetic tests.

Q: Is the CPU holding back performance in this game?

A: The benchmark data suggests not. The i5-10400F's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, scores 0.8% higher in average benchmarks, while the Intel Core i5-8500 is 1.1% ahead. These margins are negligible, and the consistent FPS drops with resolution increases indicate the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p?

A: Medium provides the best balance at 62.8 FPS, which is 26% faster than High (46.6 FPS) and 45% faster than Ultra (43.4 FPS). Low is the only preset that clears 60 FPS at 77.9 FPS, but the visual compromise may not be worth the extra 15 FPS over Medium.

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

A: It ranks 1570th out of 1795 combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 13% of tested systems. This is consistent with the GPU's mid-range standing and the CPU's older architecture.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth experience, the data points to 1080p Medium as the sweet spot, delivering 62.8 FPS. This preset offers a 35% improvement over High (46.6 FPS) while retaining more visual detail than Low (77.9 FPS). At 1440p, Medium is the only reasonable choice at 49.1 FPS; High drops to 36.2 FPS and Ultra to 36.9 FPS, both of which feel sluggish during flight maneuvers. At 4K, Low is the only viable preset at 46.2 FPS, but users should accept that this resolution will never provide a fluid experience with this hardware.

The gap between Medium and High at 1080p (16.2 FPS) is larger than the gap between High and Ultra (3.2 FPS), suggesting that the High preset includes some settings that disproportionately tax the GPU without proportional visual gains. Conversely, the jump from Low to Medium (15.1 FPS loss) is moderate, making Medium the most efficient use of the GPU's capabilities. For users prioritizing frame rate over fidelity, 1080p Low provides the only 60+ FPS experience, but the 77.9 FPS figure comes close to the refresh rate ceiling of most standard monitors.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1570 out of 1795 places this system firmly in the lower tier for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a demanding title that favors both strong single-threaded CPU performance and high GPU throughput. The i5-10400F's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1453 is adequate, but the GTX 1660 Ti's 55th percentile GPU ranking (with an average benchmark score of 13925) is the clear weak link. In comparison, the CPU's 73rd percentile ranking (average score 14168) is more respectable, indicating the processor is not the primary source of the low rank.

The delta between this combo and the top performers is substantial. Given that this system sits in the bottom 13% of tested combos, users should expect to compromise heavily on either resolution or settings to achieve playable frame rates. The data shows that even the best-case scenario — 1080p Low at 77.9 FPS — is only 23% faster than the worst-case 4K Ultra at 23.4 FPS, illustrating the narrow operating window for this hardware. For flight simulation enthusiasts who want to fly over dense scenery at high detail, this combo will require patience with lower presets.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 Ti's specifications explain its performance ceiling in this game. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for 1080p but becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions. The boost clock of 1770 MHz and 1536 shading units deliver 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is modest by modern standards. The GPU's passmark G3D score of 12871 and DirectX 12 score of 51 are consistent with its 55th percentile ranking, confirming it as a mid-range part.

The memory clock of 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) is a crucial detail for this game, as Microsoft Flight Simulator streams large terrain and aircraft textures. The 6 GB VRAM capacity may cause texture swapping at 4K Ultra, where the 23.4 FPS result likely reflects both compute and memory bandwidth constraints. The GPU's 48 ROPs and 96 TMUs are adequate for rasterization at 1080p but struggle to fill 4K frames at acceptable rates. The 120 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest this is a power-efficient part, but efficiency does not translate to high-end performance in this workload.

The RTX A2000 Mobile, a close rival at 0.8% higher average score, indicates that the GTX 1660 Ti's performance tier is well established. However, the lack of ray tracing cores (RT cores are null in the spec) means the GPU cannot offload any of the lighting computations that newer cards handle, forcing all work onto the traditional shading units. This is particularly relevant for a flight sim where dynamic lighting on clouds and water surfaces is visually prominent.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings spectrum shows: Low 77.9 FPS, Medium 62.8 FPS, High 46.6 FPS, and Ultra 43.4 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 34.5 FPS, a 44% reduction in performance for maximum visual quality. At 2560x1440, the figures are Low 61.4 FPS, Medium 49.1 FPS, High 36.2 FPS, and Ultra 36.9 FPS. Notably, High and Ultra are nearly identical at 1440p, differing by only 0.7 FPS, which suggests a setting within the Ultra preset has no measurable impact at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results compress further: Low 46.2 FPS, Medium 34.9 FPS, High 25.9 FPS, and Ultra 23.4 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra at 4K is a 22.8 FPS drop, representing a 49% loss. Comparing across resolutions at the same settings reveals the GPU's scaling behavior: at Low, 1080p to 1440p drops 16.5 FPS (21%), and 1440p to 4K drops 15.2 FPS (25%); at Ultra, the corresponding drops are 6.5 FPS (15%) and 13.5 FPS (37%). The steeper percentage drop at 4K Ultra indicates that the GPU is hitting a hard memory bandwidth wall, as compute requirements alone would not produce such a dramatic falloff. The 1080p Medium result of 62.8 FPS is the only configuration that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS while maintaining moderate visual quality, reinforcing the recommendation to use this setting for the best overall experience.