Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-10400F with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 produces a fascinating dataset. The data reveals a system where the GPU is operating at an extreme performance level, while the six-core Comet Lake processor from 2020 carries a significant load. The measured results show a clear pattern of scaling that prioritizes resolution and settings headroom, but the frame rates also expose the limits of the older platform. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions, the role of the CPU and GPU, and how this specific combination ranks against other tested builds.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a distinct pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the system produces an average of 106.4 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at Ultra, the average drops to 99.1 FPS, which is a relatively modest decrease of about 7%. However, the jump to 3840x2160 at Ultra brings the average down to 80.6 FPS, representing a more substantial 19% drop from the 1440p result. This scaling curve indicates that the RTX 5090 is still the dominant force even at 4K, but the CPU is beginning to constrain performance at lower resolutions.

The story becomes clearer when examining the Low settings. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 131.9. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops slightly to 121.9 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 115 FPS. The difference between 1080p and 4K at Low settings is only about 13%, which is surprisingly small. This suggests that at lower graphical presets, the game's simulation and draw-call overhead, which heavily relies on CPU performance, becomes a limiting factor. The i5-10400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is likely preventing the RTX 5090 from stretching its legs fully at 1080p, where the GPU has less pixel-pushing work to do.

The delta between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the gap between Low (131.9 FPS) and Ultra (106.4 FPS) is 25.5 FPS. At 1440p, the gap narrows to 22.8 FPS (121.9 vs 99.1). At 4K, the gap is just 34.4 FPS (115 vs 80.6). This is a classic sign of a CPU bottleneck at lower resolutions that lessens as the GPU workload grows. The GPU is consistently the limiting component at 4K Ultra, where the 80.6 FPS average reflects the sheer processing demand of the flight simulator's complex scenery and weather systems. In summary, the data shows that this combo is best suited for high-resolution gaming, as the CPU holds back the GPU more at 1080p than it does at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its benchmark scores show a processor that is competent for its generation but not outstanding by modern standards. In Cinebench R23, it scores 10297 points in multi-core and 1453 points in single-core. Its 3DMark 16-thread score is 4748, while the single-thread score is 688. The processor's percentile vs all CPUs is 73, indicating it performs better than 73% of all tested CPUs, but its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7552 and the Intel Core i5-8500, with delta percentages of 0.4% and -1.1% respectively. This places it in a mid-range bracket for overall processing power.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant due to the game's heavy reliance on single-thread performance for the main simulation loop, as well as multi-threading for background tasks like terrain loading and AI traffic. The benchmark results show that at 1080p, the CPU is a clear limiting factor. The difference between Low (131.9 FPS) and Ultra (106.4 FPS) at 1080p is largely a GPU-side effect, but the fact that the 1080p Low result is only 16.9 FPS higher than the 4K Low result (115 FPS) implies that the CPU cannot feed frames much faster than the 115-130 FPS range regardless of resolution. The boost clock of 4.30 GHz is adequate, but the 12 MB of shared L3 cache and the older architecture are not sufficient to fully utilize the RTX 5090 at lower resolutions.

The data suggests that for this specific game, the i5-10400F provides a performance ceiling. If you are targeting 4K, the CPU is less of a concern, as the GPU takes over the primary bottleneck. However, for competitive or high-refresh-rate 1080p play, this processor will limit the frame rate. The measured results indicate that the CPU is working hard even at 4K Ultra (80.6 FPS), but the system is balanced enough to deliver a playable experience at that resolution. The core count of 6 is the minimum for modern gaming, and while Flight Simulator can use 12 threads, the single-thread performance is what determines the upper limit of the simulation's frame pacing.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 with Ultra settings is 99.1 FPS. This is the second-highest resolution tested, and the result is only about 8% lower than the 1080p Ultra score of 106.4 FPS, showing that the GPU maintains strong performance at this resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck at 1920x1080 with Low settings?

A: The data strongly suggests the CPU is the limiting factor at 1080p Low. The average FPS of 131.9 is the highest of all tested settings, but the scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is only a 13% drop (from 131.9 to 115 FPS). This indicates the i5-10400F cannot push frame rates much higher than this regardless of the GPU's capability.

Q: How does the 3840x2160 Ultra result compare to the 2560x1440 Ultra result?

A: The 4K Ultra average is 80.6 FPS, while the 1440p Ultra average is 99.1 FPS. This represents a performance drop of 18.5 FPS, or roughly 19%, which is a significant cost for the higher resolution. The game remains playable at 4K Ultra, but the frame rate is noticeably lower.

Q: What is the best resolution to get a frame rate above 100 FPS on High settings?

A: The data shows that on High settings, both 1920x1080 (112.7 FPS) and 2560x1440 (100.6 FPS) average above 100 FPS. At 3840x2160 High, the average drops to 83.2 FPS. Therefore, to stay above 100 FPS on High, you should stick to 1440p or lower.

Q: Does the RTX 5090's 32 GB of VRAM make a difference in this game?

A: The measured FPS data does not directly capture VRAM usage, but the 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are sufficient for the highest texture and scenery loads. The performance scaling from Medium to Ultra at 4K (102.9 to 80.6 FPS) shows a typical GPU workload increase, with no sudden drops that would indicate a VRAM capacity limitation.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all other tested combinations?

A: This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 266th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 15% of all tested systems, which is strong, but the rank reflects the CPU's limiting effect on the powerful GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves a rank of 266 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a strong showing, placing the system in the top 14.8% of all configurations. However, the rank reveals a mismatch in performance tiers. The RTX 5090 is a top-tier GPU, with an average benchmark score of 84306 and a percentile of 94 vs all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 5090 D and the RTX 5050 Mobile, with delta percentages of 0.1% and 0.2%, indicating that the 5090 is at the very top of the GPU performance chart.

In contrast, the i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14168 and a percentile of 73 vs all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7552 and the Intel Core i5-8500, which are older or lower-power parts. This places the CPU in the upper-midrange, but far from the top tier. The rank of 266 reflects this imbalance. If the CPU were a higher-end part, such as a modern flagship, the combination would likely rank much higher, as the GPU has the headroom to deliver higher frame rates, particularly at 1080p and 1440p. The data shows that the combo is competitive, but the CPU is holding back what could be a top-100 result. For a game like Flight Simulator, which is known for being CPU-intensive, the rank reflects the GPU's brute force, but it also serves as a caution that the processor is the weak link in this pairing.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is the most important component in this system for determining raw frame rate output. Based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, it features 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 ROPs. Its boost clock is 2407 MHz, and it comes with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing a massive 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 39650 in Passmark G3D and 14411 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, with a percentile of 94 vs all GPUs. These specifications and scores indicate a GPU that is designed for extreme 4K and high-refresh-rate gaming.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the detailed terrain, aircraft models, and dynamic lighting. The measured FPS shows that the RTX 5090 is powerful enough to maintain high frame rates even at 4K. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average is 83.2 FPS, and at Ultra, it is 80.6 FPS. The narrow gap between these two presets (2.6 FPS) suggests that the GPU is still capable of handling the additional load of Ultra settings without a massive performance hit. The 32 GB of VRAM and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are more than sufficient for the game's high-resolution textures, and there is no evidence in the data of a memory bottleneck. The GPU's performance is consistent across resolutions, and it is only the CPU that prevents the system from achieving higher frame rates at lower resolutions. The RTX 5090 is clearly the star of this show, but its full potential is not realized due to the older CPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings yield 131.9 FPS, Medium yields 124 FPS, High yields 112.7 FPS, and Ultra yields 106.4 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a 25.5 FPS drop, which is the largest absolute drop of any resolution. This indicates that the GPU is doing more work as settings increase, but the CPU is also limiting the maximum achievable frame rate, as the Low setting cannot push past 132 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the results show a tighter grouping: Low averages 121.9 FPS, Medium averages 116.5 FPS, High averages 100.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 99.1 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 22.8 FPS, slightly smaller than at 1080p. The gap between High and Ultra is just 1.5 FPS, which is negligible, suggesting that the GPU can handle the Ultra preset without a significant cost over High. This resolution appears to be the sweet spot for this combo, offering a balance between visual fidelity and frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are the lowest but still respectable: Low averages 115 FPS, Medium averages 102.9 FPS, High averages 83.2 FPS, and Ultra averages 80.6 FPS. The drop from Medium to High is 19.7 FPS, which is the most significant jump between presets, indicating that the High preset introduces a substantial GPU workload increase. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2.6 FPS, showing that the Ultra preset is not much more demanding than High. The data shows that this system can handle 4K gaming well, but for a smoother experience, sticking to Medium or High settings is advisable, as the Ultra preset provides minimal visual benefit for a 22.3 FPS loss compared to Medium.