Microsoft Flight Simulator

CPU Role - cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Core 10th Gen series, built on the Comet Lake architecture using a 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The processor includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The CPU connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-10400F demonstrates its multi-threaded capability. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 10283, while the single-core score is 1451. The Geekbench multicore result is 6257, and the single-core result is 1420. The 3DMark tests show a progression from 688 points in single-thread, 1350 in 2-threads, 2560 in 4-threads, 3929 in 8-threads, and 4735 in max-threads. The Passmark multithread score is 12115, with a single-thread score of 2541. The processor's percentile ranking against all CPUs is 68, and its average benchmark score is 14185.

The nearest rivals in the database show how tightly grouped this CPU is. The Intel Xeon 6756E scores 14163, which is 0.2% above the i5-10400F. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, putting the i5-10400F 0.3% ahead of that chip. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, meaning the i5-10400F is 0.5% higher. The AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, with the i5-10400F trailing by 0.6%. These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating that the i5-10400F sits in a dense performance cluster where no single rival holds a significant edge in aggregate benchmark scores.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily in handling the simulation's complex scenery processing, flight model calculations, and AI traffic. The data from the measured FPS shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 132.8 FPS. This high value suggests the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU when the graphical load is light. As resolution increases, the CPU's influence on the final frame rate diminishes relative to the GPU, but the 6-core/12-thread configuration with a 4.30 GHz boost clock provides the foundation for consistent frame delivery across all tested settings.

GPU Role - VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is built on the Ampere architecture with the GA104 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process by Samsung. The GPU contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, with a transistor density of 44.4M per mm². The base clock is 1575 MHz, and the boost clock reaches 1770 MHz. Memory operates at 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 608.3 GB/s. The shader configuration includes 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 339.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 21.75 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 21.75 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The TDP is 290 W, requiring a 600 W suggested PSU, with a dual-slot cooler and a single 12-pin power connector.

In benchmark results, the RTX 3070 Ti scores 23356 in Passmark G3D and 11601 in Passmark GPU compute. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields 3478 points. Geekbench OpenCL scores 119718, and Vulkan scores 139541. The GPU's percentile ranking against all GPUs is 75, with an average benchmark score of 29945.

The nearest rivals show the competitive positioning. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile scores 29928, which is 0.1% above the RTX 3070 Ti. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 scores 30095, meaning the RTX 3070 Ti is 0.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti scores 29783, with the RTX 3070 Ti 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 30433, placing the RTX 3070 Ti 1.6% behind. These small deltas indicate the RTX 3070 Ti performs in a tight band relative to its immediate peers.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 608.3 GB/s bandwidth are critical for streaming high-resolution terrain textures and detailed aircraft models. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average frame rate drops to 43.6 FPS, while at 1080p Ultra it reaches 81.7 FPS. This scaling pattern places the GPU as the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. The 21.75 TFLOPS of FP32 compute handles the shading and lighting workloads, while the 48 RT cores assist with any ray-traced effects the simulation may employ.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: The average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 81.7 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in aggregate benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, which is 0.2% lower than the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14163, 0.3% higher than the Intel Core 7 160UL at 14232, 0.5% higher than the AMD EPYC 7552 at 14115, and 0.6% lower than the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14277.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti ranks in the 75th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The lowest average FPS is 43.6 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: How much VRAM does the RTX 3070 Ti have and what type is it?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti has 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the boost clock of the Intel Core i5-10400F?

A: The boost clock is 4.30 GHz, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers four resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), producing twelve distinct data points. The combination ranks 1361 out of 3714 tested combos in the game, placing it in the upper third of all configurations.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 132.8 FPS. Moving to Medium reduces the average to 113.3 FPS, a drop of 19.5 FPS. The High preset averages 83.4 FPS, which is 29.9 FPS below Medium. The Ultra preset averages 81.7 FPS, only 1.7 FPS below High. This indicates that at 1080p, the transition from Low to Medium costs significant performance, but the jump from High to Ultra is relatively modest.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 116.2 FPS. Medium averages 90 FPS, which is 26.2 FPS lower than Low. High averages 65.8 FPS, a drop of 24.2 FPS from Medium. Ultra averages 62 FPS, which is 3.8 FPS below High. The pattern repeats: the largest performance gap occurs between Low and Medium, while High to Ultra remains a smaller step.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 81.6 FPS. Medium averages 65.7 FPS, a decrease of 15.9 FPS. High averages 46.9 FPS, which is 18.8 FPS lower than Medium. Ultra averages 43.6 FPS, a drop of 3.3 FPS from High. At 4K, the gap between Medium and High becomes the largest single-step reduction, whereas at lower resolutions the Low-to-Medium transition was the steepest.

The absolute frame rate range spans from 43.6 FPS at 4K Ultra to 132.8 FPS at 1080p Low. Every resolution shows a consistent ordering: Low produces the highest FPS, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra producing the lowest FPS. The spacing between presets varies by resolution, with 1080p showing a 51.1 FPS difference between Low and Ultra, 1440p showing a 54.2 FPS difference, and 4K showing a 38 FPS difference.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K reveals how the workload shifts between CPU and GPU. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 132.8 at 1080p to 116.2 at 1440p, then to 81.6 at 4K. This represents a 38.6% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 113.3 to 90 to 65.7, a 42.0% reduction. At High settings, the values are 83.4 to 65.8 to 46.9, a 43.8% reduction. At Ultra settings, the values are 81.7 to 62 to 43.6, a 46.6% reduction.

The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K increases as settings rise. This indicates that at higher presets, the GPU becomes more heavily loaded, and the additional pixel count at 4K has a larger relative impact. Conversely, at Low settings, the CPU has more influence, and the frame rate remains relatively higher at 4K because the GPU workload is lighter.

The scaling from 1440p to 4K is also informative. At Low settings, the drop is from 116.2 to 81.6, a 29.8% reduction. At Medium, it goes from 90 to 65.7, a 27.0% reduction. At High, it goes from 65.8 to 46.9, a 28.7% reduction. At Ultra, it goes from 62 to 43.6, a 29.7% reduction. The percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is fairly consistent across settings, hovering around 27% to 30%. This consistency suggests that the resolution scaling behavior is stable regardless of the preset, with the GPU being the limiting factor in all cases at these higher resolutions.

The data shows that the RTX 3070 Ti with 8 GB of VRAM is the primary constraint at 4K, particularly with Ultra settings where the average FPS falls below 45. The 608.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and the 256-bit bus are enough for 1440p Ultra at 62 FPS, but the 4K Ultra workload exceeds what the GPU can sustain at playable rates. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, does not appear to bottleneck at any tested setting, as evidenced by the 132.8 FPS result at 1080p Low, which is well above the GPU's capability at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear picture of which preset offers the best experience for this hardware combination. At 1080p, the Medium preset at 113.3 FPS delivers a smooth experience with substantially higher frame rates than High at 83.4 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 1.7 FPS, meaning Ultra offers no meaningful performance penalty over High while providing the highest visual quality. Players targeting 60 FPS at 1080p can comfortably use Ultra at 81.7 FPS.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 90 FPS provides a strong balance. High at 65.8 FPS remains above 60 FPS, and Ultra at 62 FPS also clears that threshold. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is 3.8 FPS, which is small enough that Ultra becomes a viable choice for those wanting maximum visual fidelity while staying above 60 FPS. Low at 116.2 FPS is available for high-refresh-rate displays, but the visual compromise is significant compared to the modest FPS gain over Medium.

At 4K, the situation changes. Low at 81.6 FPS is the only preset that delivers a clearly smooth experience. Medium at 65.7 FPS is playable, but High at 46.9 FPS and Ultra at 43.6 FPS fall below the 60 FPS threshold. The data suggests that 4K Ultra is not a realistic target for this combination if frame rate consistency is a priority. Medium at 4K provides 65.7 FPS, which is the best balance of visual quality and performance at that resolution, while Low at 81.6 FPS offers a smoother experience for those who prioritize frame rate.

The overall recommendation based on the measured rows is to use the Medium preset at 4K, the High preset at 1440p, and the Ultra preset at 1080p. This combination maximizes visual quality while maintaining average FPS above 60 at all resolutions. At 4K, the jump from Medium to High costs 18.8 FPS, which is a steep penalty for the visual improvement. At 1440p, the jump from High to Ultra costs only 3.8 FPS, making Ultra a reasonable choice. At 1080p, the jump from High to Ultra costs only 1.7 FPS, making Ultra the obvious choice.

The data also shows that Low settings are never necessary for achieving playable frame rates at any resolution with this hardware. Even at 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 43.6 is above the threshold for a playable simulation, though it may not feel smooth. The sweet spot in the measured data is the Medium preset across all resolutions, as it consistently delivers frame rates that are roughly 60% higher than High at 1080p, 37% higher at 1440p, and 40% higher at 4K. This suggests that Medium is the most efficient preset for this game and hardware combination, offering the largest performance return for the visual tradeoff.