Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 delivers a broad range of frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, depending on how the user balances resolution and graphical preset. The measured data covers four preset levels—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—at three resolutions: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. Across these twelve data points, the average FPS ranges from a low of 74.7 at 4K Ultra to a high of 136.7 at 1080p Low. This spread indicates that the combination is capable of smooth flight simulation in most scenarios, but the choice of settings will significantly shape the experience, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU’s load increases.

Settings Recommendations

The data shows that the most balanced experience for this pairing is the High preset at 2560x1440, which produces an average of 101.7 FPS. This sits comfortably above the 100 FPS threshold, which is often considered a target for fluid simulation in a game where camera movement and terrain streaming are constant. At 1920x1080, High yields 113.1 FPS, which is slightly higher, but the visual fidelity gain from 1440p is substantial for a flight sim where cockpit detail and distant scenery matter. Compared to Ultra at the same resolution, High is 2.2 FPS faster at 1440p (101.7 vs 99.5) and 3.6 FPS faster at 1080p (113.1 vs 109.5), while likely reducing the load on the RTX 4090’s memory and compute resources; the data does not specify per-setting GPU utilization, but the frame rate deltas suggest that Ultra offers diminishing returns.

For users prioritizing maximum smoothness over visual polish, the Low preset at 1920x1080 delivers the highest measured average at 136.7 FPS. This is 23.6 FPS above the High preset at the same resolution, a substantial headroom that could be valuable in dense urban areas or during heavy weather effects, though the data does not break down FPS by scene complexity. However, Low is not recommended as a default because the jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs only 10.9 FPS (from 136.7 to 125.8), which is a modest penalty for likely significant visual improvements. At 4K, the Medium preset provides 100.1 FPS, which is the only 4K setting that breaks the 100 FPS barrier; High and Ultra fall to 77.4 and 74.7, respectively. Given that 4K Medium is 22.7 FPS faster than 4K High, it emerges as the strongest choice for 4K users who want both resolution and playability.

The Ultra preset never exceeds 109.5 FPS at any resolution and drops to 74.7 at 4K. While these numbers are playable, the performance cost relative to High is consistently small—at 1080p, the difference is 3.6 FPS; at 1440p, it is 2.2 FPS; at 4K, it is 2.7 FPS. This suggests that Ultra does not meaningfully tax the RTX 4090 more than High in this title, so users with a 120 Hz or 144 Hz display at 1080p or 1440p could enable Ultra without sacrificing much. However, for 4K, the drop from High to Ultra is negligible in frame rate, so the choice between them should be based on visual preference rather than performance.

GPU Role

The RTX 4090’s specifications are central to interpreting these results. It features 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 1.01 TB/s. This memory configuration is well-suited to Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams large terrain and airport data; the 24 GB capacity ensures that the GPU is unlikely to be bottlenecked by VRAM allocation at any of the tested settings, though the data does not directly measure VRAM usage. The GPU’s base clock is 2235 MHz with a boost clock of 2520 MHz, and its memory runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed. These clocks are high for a consumer GPU, and the benchmark results reflect that: in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the card scores 9223, and in Passmark G3D, it scores 38194.

The GPU’s role in this pairing becomes evident when examining the FPS deltas between presets. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is 27.2 FPS (136.7 to 109.5), which is a 24.9% drop. At 4K, the same preset swing produces a 37.9 FPS drop (112.6 to 74.7), a 33.7% reduction. This larger percentage drop at 4K indicates that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions, whereas at 1080p, the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads may be more involved, though the data does not isolate CPU utilization. The RTX 4090’s 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 1,290.2 GTexel/s texture rate are likely sufficient to handle the game’s draw calls and shading work, but the measured FPS at 4K Ultra (74.7) shows that even this flagship GPU cannot guarantee 100+ FPS at maximum settings in this simulation.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved by this CPU-GPU combination?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 136.7, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only setting that exceeds 130 FPS across all tested configurations.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from High to Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the High preset averages 101.7 FPS, while Ultra averages 99.5 FPS. The difference is 2.2 FPS, meaning Ultra is only 2.2% slower in relative terms—a negligible penalty for the higher visual fidelity.

Q: Is 4K playable with this combo?

A: Yes, but only with careful settings. At 3840x2160, the Medium preset delivers 100.1 FPS, which is above the 100 FPS threshold. High and Ultra produce 77.4 and 74.7 FPS, respectively, which are still playable but noticeably lower.

Q: Which preset offers the best balance at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 yields 125.8 FPS, which is 10.9 FPS below Low but 12.7 FPS above High. Given that Low sacrifices significant visual quality, Medium appears to be the optimal middle ground for 1080p users.

Q: Does the GPU’s 24 GB VRAM matter for this game?

A: The data does not include VRAM usage metrics, but the 24 GB capacity on a 384-bit bus with 1.01 TB/s bandwidth is substantial. Given that the game streams large datasets, this memory configuration likely prevents VRAM-related stutters, though the measured FPS does not directly confirm this.

Q: How does the RTX 4090’s performance compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: In the Passmark G3D benchmark, the RTX 4090 scores 38194. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla T4, scores 66733 in average benchmark score across multiple tests, but this is a different metric. For the GPU’s own benchmark list, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 9223, which is a strong result for a single card.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of Intel Core i5-10400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 ranks 268 out of 1795 combos. This places it in the top 14.9% of all tested configurations, indicating that it delivers above-average performance for this title. The CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 73, meaning it outperforms 73% of CPUs in general benchmarks, and its average benchmark score is 14168. The GPU’s percentile vs all GPUs is 91, and its average benchmark score is 66473. These synthetic scores suggest that the GPU is the stronger component relative to its peers, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing that the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions.

The combo rank of 268 is notable because the CPU is a mid-range 10th-generation part, while the GPU is a flagship. This asymmetry means that in CPU-bound scenarios—such as low resolution or low settings—the i5-10400F might limit the RTX 4090’s full potential. However, the measured FPS at 1080p Low (136.7) suggests that the CPU can still drive high frame rates in this game, which is known to rely heavily on single-core performance. The CPU’s single-thread benchmark in Geekbench is 1454, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 1453, which are modest compared to modern CPUs, but the game’s optimization may not require extreme single-thread performance for these FPS levels.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS progression from 1080p to 4K reveals how the workload shifts between the CPU and GPU. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 136.7 at 1080p to 123.1 at 1440p, a decrease of 13.6 FPS (10.0%). Moving from 1440p to 4K, the FPS falls further to 112.6, another drop of 10.5 FPS (8.5%). The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low is 24.1 FPS (17.6%). In contrast, at the Ultra preset, the FPS drops from 109.5 at 1080p to 99.5 at 1440p (10.0 FPS, 9.1%), and then to 74.7 at 4K (24.8 FPS, 24.9%). The larger absolute and percentage drop at Ultra from 1440p to 4K indicates that the GPU is more heavily stressed at higher settings, as expected.

This pattern suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is more likely to be the limiting factor, because the FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is only 10%, which is relatively mild. At Ultra, the 4K FPS of 74.7 is 31.8% lower than the 1080p FPS of 109.5, showing that the GPU’s rendering load at 4K Ultra is the dominant constraint. The RTX 4090’s 1.01 TB/s bandwidth and 24 GB VRAM are sufficient for 4K, but the game’s complex lighting and terrain rendering at Ultra still push the card to its limits, as evidenced by the sub-80 FPS results. For users with a 1440p monitor, the scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings is only 8.7 FPS (125.8 to 117.1), which is a 6.9% drop—this is a relatively efficient resolution scaling that leaves the CPU and GPU in a balanced state.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full preset range is available. The Low preset averages 136.7 FPS, which is the highest of any configuration. Medium averages 125.8 FPS, a drop of 10.9 FPS from Low. High averages 113.1 FPS, another 12.7 FPS reduction. Ultra averages 109.5 FPS, which is only 3.6 FPS below High. This shows a clear pattern where the first two settings (Low to Medium) cost more performance than the last two (High to Ultra). At 2560x1440, the numbers are: Low at 123.1 FPS, Medium at 117.1 FPS, High at 101.7 FPS, and Ultra at 99.5 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 15.4 FPS, which is the largest single jump across all resolutions, indicating that High introduces significant visual effects that tax the GPU. At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 112.6 FPS, Medium at 100.1 FPS, High at 77.4 FPS, and Ultra at 74.7 FPS. The drop from Medium to High at 4K is 22.7 FPS, which is the largest absolute difference between any two adjacent settings in the entire dataset. This suggests that High at 4K adds a substantial compute load, likely from higher-resolution textures or more intensive shading, which the RTX 4090 handles but with notable performance cost.

Across all resolutions, the Ultra preset never exceeds 109.5 FPS, and the Low preset never falls below 112.6 FPS. This overlap means that a user could achieve similar FPS by choosing Low at 4K (112.6) or Ultra at 1080p (109.5), with the former offering much higher resolution but lower visual detail. The data does not include per-frame minimum or maximum FPS, so the average values should be interpreted as general indicators rather than guarantees of smoothness, particularly in a flight sim where stutters can occur during terrain loading. The RTX 4090’s 5 nm process and 76,300 million transistors contribute to its high compute throughput, but the measured FPS at 4K Ultra indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator remains a demanding title even for the most powerful consumer GPU.