Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with Intel Core i5-10400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

The combination of Intel's 6-core Comet Lake processor and NVIDIA's Ampere-based RTX 3060 Ti produces a revealing set of results in Microsoft Flight Simulator, where the measured frame rates show a hardware pairing that leans on the GPU heavily at higher resolutions but retains CPU headroom at 1080p. The data, collected across three resolutions and four settings presets, indicates this system ranks 1309th out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database. That ranking, combined with the FPS curves, suggests a pairing that is capable but not exceptional for this demanding flight simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but the magnitude of that drop varies significantly depending on the settings preset. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 98.3 FPS at 1080p to 82.0 FPS at 1440p — a 16.6% reduction — and then to 57.2 FPS at 4K, representing a 41.8% drop from the 1080p baseline. This pattern indicates that even at Low settings, the GPU is the primary limiting component as pixel count rises, though the CPU still has room to push higher frame rates at lower resolutions.

At High settings, the scaling is steeper: 59.2 FPS at 1080p drops to 48.9 FPS at 1440p (a 17.4% decline) and then to 31.5 FPS at 4K, which is a 46.8% reduction from the 1080p figure. The Ultra preset tells a similar story, with 56.5 FPS at 1080p falling to 43.4 FPS at 1440p (23.2% lower) and 35.7 FPS at 4K (36.8% lower). Interestingly, the Medium preset shows the most consistent scaling between 1080p and 1440p — 78.1 to 64.1 FPS, a 17.9% drop — but the 4K result of 43.5 FPS represents a 44.3% reduction from 1080p.

What the data implies is that this system is GPU-bound in nearly every configuration tested. The RTX 3060 Ti, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, appears to be the constraining factor when moving from 1440p to 4K, especially at High and Ultra settings where the frame rate dips below 40 FPS. The CPU's role becomes more apparent at 1080p, where the frame rates exceed what the GPU can sustain at higher resolutions, but the overall trend confirms that resolution scaling is the dominant performance variable here.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F brings six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, built on the Comet Lake architecture using a 14 nm process. Its benchmark scores show a processor that is solidly mid-range: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10297 and a single-core score of 1453, with a Geekbench multi-core result of 5783 and single-core of 1454. The Passmark multi-thread score of 12115 and single-thread score of 2541 further characterize this CPU as competent but not class-leading.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's impact is most visible when examining the 1080p Low preset, where the system reaches 98.3 FPS. That figure suggests the processor is capable of feeding the GPU adequately at lower resolutions, but the fact that the 1080p High preset only reaches 59.2 FPS — a 39.8% drop from Low — indicates that the game's simulation workload scales with settings in ways that engage the CPU more heavily. The 12 MB of shared L3 cache likely helps with the game's streaming-heavy world data, and the dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for this workload.

Compared to its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark database, the i5-10400F sits within a tight cluster. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552, 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, 1.1% behind the Intel Core i5-8500, and 1.2% behind the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546. These minuscule deltas suggest that, for this game, the CPU is not the differentiating factor at higher resolutions — the GPU takes over as the bottleneck once pixel counts rise. The processor's 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms it is above average, but the measured FPS data shows that in Flight Simulator, the CPU's contribution is most felt at 1080p where frame rates exceed 60 FPS on Medium settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is the more influential component in this pairing, and the data reflects its strengths and limitations. With 4864 shading units, 152 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units, the GPU is built on the Ampere architecture at 8 nm, featuring 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. Its boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1410 MHz, combined with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, provide a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s that is critical for Flight Simulator's high-resolution textures.

The GPU's benchmark results place it at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, with a Passmark G3D score of 20349 and a Passmark GPU compute score of 10006. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within 0.7% of its average score: the AMD Radeon RX 6700M is 0.2% behind, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is 0.5% behind, the AMD Radeon 890M is 0.5% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP is 0.7% behind. This clustering indicates that the RTX 3060 Ti is a mainstream performer, not a high-end card.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU's role becomes clear: at 4K Ultra, the system manages only 35.7 FPS, which is below the typical 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay. At 4K High, the 31.5 FPS figure is even lower, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not the primary cost — rather, the raw pixel count overwhelms the GPU. The 4K Low result of 57.2 FPS shows that reducing settings can bring the game into a playable range, but the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are clearly stretched at this resolution. The 1440p results are more encouraging, with High hitting 48.9 FPS and Medium reaching 64.1 FPS, indicating that this GPU is best suited for 1440p gaming in this title.

Settings Recommendations

Examining the measured rows, the most balanced experience appears to be at 1440p Medium, where the system achieves 64.1 FPS. This setting provides a frame rate that is comfortably above 60 FPS while still maintaining a level of visual fidelity that is appropriate for a flight simulator. At 1440p High, the 48.9 FPS result is playable but noticeably less smooth, and the jump to Ultra drops to 43.4 FPS, which may be acceptable for a slower-paced sim but is not ideal.

At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 78.1 FPS, which is the best combination of smoothness and quality among the 1080p options. The Low preset reaches 98.3 FPS, but at the cost of visual detail that matters in a game where scenery and cockpit instruments are central. The High preset at 59.2 FPS is close to the 60 FPS target, while Ultra at 56.5 FPS is slightly below. For 4K users, the Low preset at 57.2 FPS is the only configuration that approaches playability, as the Medium (43.5 FPS), Ultra (35.7 FPS), and High (31.5 FPS) settings all fall well short of a smooth experience.

The data suggests that 1440p Medium or 1080p Medium are the sweet spots for this pairing, offering frame rates above 60 FPS without requiring the visual compromises of Low settings. For users who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 98.3 FPS is the clear winner, but the 1440p Medium result of 64.1 FPS provides a better overall experience for this simulator's visual strengths.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1309th out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 27th percentile of all tested systems. This is a modest ranking that reflects the mid-range nature of both components. The CPU's 73rd percentile ranking among all processors and the GPU's 69th percentile ranking among all GPUs might suggest a higher overall position, but the game's demanding nature and the specific workload of Flight Simulator pull the combined performance down.

The ranking implies that there are 486 tested combinations that perform worse, but also 1308 that perform better. Given that the CPU and GPU are both near the 70th percentile individually, the 27th percentile combo ranking suggests that this game is particularly sensitive to the combination's weaknesses — likely the GPU's 8 GB VRAM at higher resolutions and the CPU's modest single-thread performance in simulation-heavy scenes. The delta between individual component percentiles and the combined ranking highlights that Flight Simulator is not a typical game; it demands both strong CPU single-thread performance and substantial GPU memory bandwidth, and this pairing offers a compromise rather than excellence in either area.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1440p Medium provides 64.1 FPS, which is the highest frame rate above 60 FPS at a resolution above 1080p. The 1080p Medium setting delivers 78.1 FPS, but 1440p offers more visual detail for a 10% increase in pixels per frame.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where it achieves 57.2 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K drops to 43.5 FPS, High to 31.5 FPS, and Ultra to 35.7 FPS, all of which are below a smooth 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-10400F is 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7552, 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, 1.1% behind the Intel Core i5-8500, and 1.2% behind the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 in average benchmark scores.

Q: What is the GPU's closest competitor in performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700M is 0.2% behind the RTX 3060 Ti in average benchmark scores, making it the closest rival. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 and AMD Radeon 890M are each 0.5% behind.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important for this game's performance?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck at resolutions above 1080p, as frame rates drop by up to 46.8% from 1080p to 4K at High settings. The CPU's influence is most visible at 1080p Low, where the system reaches 98.3 FPS.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking among tested systems?

A: It ranks 1309th out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its highest frame rates: 98.3 FPS on Low, 78.1 FPS on Medium, 59.2 FPS on High, and 56.5 FPS on Ultra. The spread between Low and Ultra is 41.8 FPS, showing a significant impact from settings at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decline across all presets: 82.0 FPS on Low, 64.1 FPS on Medium, 48.9 FPS on High, and 43.4 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 38.6 FPS, indicating that the GPU is becoming a limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates: 57.2 FPS on Low, 43.5 FPS on Medium, 35.7 FPS on Ultra, and 31.5 FPS on High. Notably, the Ultra preset performs better than High at 4K, with a 4.2 FPS advantage, which is an anomaly in the data. The overall pattern shows that this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K reserved for Low settings or users who accept frame rates below 40 FPS.