Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Rocket Lake desktop processor with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It operates on a 14 nm process node with a 65 W TDP, and its 12 MB of shared L3 cache is distributed across the six physical cores. In the broader CPU landscape, this chip sits at the 71st percentile of all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 17,177 — placing it within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 7H12 and 0.6% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U, while trailing the Intel Core i5-12450H by 0.4% and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G by 0.6%.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's thread configuration matters more than raw core count. The game's simulation logic — weather systems, physics, AI traffic, and flight dynamics — benefits from the 12 threads, but the single-thread performance is equally critical. The i5-11400F posts a 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and a Cinebench R20 single-core score of 850, which are respectable but not class-leading figures. The multicore results show a 3DMark 16-thread score of 5,619 and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14,340, indicating that the processor scales well when all threads are engaged.

The measured FPS data reveals an interesting pattern: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 54 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it drops to 30 FPS. This 44% reduction from Low to Ultra at the same resolution suggests that the CPU is not the sole bottleneck at lower settings. However, the gap between 1080p High (31 FPS) and 1440p High (25 FPS) is only 19%, while the gap between 1440p High and 4K High (19 FPS) is 24%. This scaling behavior indicates that as resolution increases, the GPU becomes progressively more limiting, but the CPU's 6-core/12-thread configuration still manages to feed the graphics card adequately even at 4K.

The processor's memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR4 is another factor. Flight simulators often stream terrain data, and the 12 MB L3 cache helps reduce repeated memory fetches. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,691 and 4-thread score of 3,171 show that lightly threaded workloads — which characterize much of the flight simulation's core logic — are handled efficiently. Yet the game's average FPS at 4K Ultra (18 FPS) suggests that even with this CPU's capabilities, the overall combination struggles at the highest settings.

# FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches an average of 54 FPS, which is the best result across all tested settings and resolutions.

Q: How does the CPU's multicore performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-11400F's average benchmark score of 17,177 is 0.3% above the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17,120), 0.6% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17,074), but 0.4% below the Intel Core i5-12450H (17,239) and 0.6% below the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17,278).

Q: What is the FPS difference between Medium and Ultra at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium settings deliver an average of 34 FPS (with a minimum of 29 and maximum of 39), while Ultra settings drop to 24 FPS average — a 29% reduction.

Q: Does the GPU's VRAM capacity influence performance at 4K?

A: The RX 580 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. At 3840x2160, even Low settings yield only 32 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 18 FPS, suggesting that the 8 GB capacity is not the primary constraint — the GPU's compute throughput is more limiting.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested system combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3,376 out of 3,714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 9% of all systems tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What is the FPS range for Medium settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 42, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48, showing a 12 FPS variance across the measurement window.

# Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimizing the experience. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 54 FPS average, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset to exceed 50 FPS. Medium settings at the same resolution still provide a playable 42 FPS average (minimum 36, maximum 48), while High drops to 31 FPS and Ultra to 30 FPS. The step from Medium to High costs 11 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 1 FPS — suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

For 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low settings yield 43 FPS, Medium provides 34 FPS (29–39 range), High drops to 25 FPS, and Ultra falls to 24 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p appears to be the sweet spot for this resolution, offering a 34 FPS average that remains above the 30 FPS threshold typically associated with acceptable simulation performance. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is minimal (1 FPS), so choosing High over Ultra yields nearly identical performance with potentially better visual fidelity.

At 3840x2160, none of the settings achieve 30 FPS. Low delivers 32 FPS, Medium 25 FPS (21–29 range), High 19 FPS, and Ultra 18 FPS. For 4K users, Low is the only viable option, and even then, the 32 FPS average is marginal for a flight simulator where smooth panning matters. The data suggests that this combo is best experienced at 1080p with Medium or Low settings, or at 1440p with Medium settings. The 1080p Medium preset (42 FPS average) offers the best balance between visual quality and frame rate, while 1440p Medium (34 FPS) is acceptable for users prioritizing resolution over smoothness.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3,376 out of 3,714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 9% of all systems evaluated. This rank reflects the combined limitations of both components in this specific title. The CPU's 71st percentile standing among all processors suggests it is not the primary drag — rather, the GPU's 53rd percentile position among all graphics cards more closely aligns with the combo's overall placement.

The rank disparity is telling. The CPU's average benchmark score of 17,177 places it comfortably above the median processor, but the game's measured FPS at 1080p High (31 FPS) falls below what many competing systems achieve. This suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's unique rendering demands — heavy draw distances, detailed terrain, and complex lighting — disproportionately stress the GPU relative to typical benchmarks. The RX 580's 8 GB VRAM and 256-bit memory bus are adequate, but its 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 42.88 GPixel/s pixel rate appear insufficient for the game's highest presets.

Interestingly, the combo's rank of 3,376 out of 3,714 means that only 338 tested combinations performed worse. This places the system in the same performance tier as older or entry-level hardware, despite the CPU's relatively strong benchmark results. The data implies that for this game, the GPU is the limiting factor in the pairing — a conclusion reinforced by the FPS scaling across resolutions, where increasing pixel count from 1080p to 4K at the same settings yields proportionally larger FPS drops than would be expected if the CPU were the bottleneck.

# Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K at each settings level. At Low settings, the average FPS progresses from 54 (1080p) to 43 (1440p) to 32 (4K) — a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 26% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 42 → 34 → 25, representing a 19% drop and then a 26% drop. At High settings, the numbers are 31 → 25 → 19, with a 19% drop and then a 24% drop. At Ultra, the pattern holds: 30 → 24 → 18, with 20% and 25% drops respectively.

The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings levels is revealing. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU's workload is largely resolution-independent. Instead, the FPS drops by roughly 19–20% from 1080p to 1440p and then by 24–26% from 1440p to 4K, regardless of settings preset. This uniform scaling indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at every resolution and settings combination tested.

The slightly larger percentage drops from 1440p to 4K compared to 1080p to 1440p suggest that the RX 580's memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) and pixel rate (42.88 GPixel/s) become increasingly strained as pixel count grows. At 4K, the GPU must process four times the pixels of 1080p, and the data shows that even at Low settings, the average FPS of 32 is barely playable. The pattern across all resolutions points to a system where the CPU has headroom to spare — the i5-11400F's 12 threads and 4.40 GHz boost clock are not the constraining factor, even in a simulation-heavy title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 54 FPS average
• Medium: 42 FPS average (minimum 36, maximum 48)
• High: 31 FPS average
• Ultra: 30 FPS average

At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium costs 12 FPS, while Medium to High costs 11 FPS. The High to Ultra transition costs only 1 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset's additional visual effects have minimal performance impact at this resolution — likely because the GPU is already saturated.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 43 FPS average
• Medium: 34 FPS average (minimum 29, maximum 39)
• High: 25 FPS average
• Ultra: 24 FPS average

The 1440p results show a 9 FPS drop from Low to Medium, then a 9 FPS drop from Medium to High, and only 1 FPS from High to Ultra. The Medium preset's minimum of 29 FPS suggests that brief dips below 30 FPS are possible, which could cause perceptible stutters in a flight simulator.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 32 FPS average
• Medium: 25 FPS average (minimum 21, maximum 29)
• High: 19 FPS average
• Ultra: 18 FPS average

At 4K, the Medium preset's minimum of 21 FPS and maximum of 29 FPS show significant variance, indicating that the GPU is struggling to maintain consistent frame times. The Low preset's 32 FPS average is the only 4K option that approaches playability, and even then, the lack of min/max data for Low suggests that the measurement may have been more consistent.

# GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is built on the Polaris 20 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1340 MHz. The 8 GB of GDDR5 memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's compute capabilities include 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s.

In the broader GPU landscape, the RX 580 sits at the 53rd percentile of all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 12,928. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12,940, 0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12,986, 0.4% faster), while it leads the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, 0.5% slower) and the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, 0.6% slower). This places the RX 580 in the middle of the pack — neither a standout performer nor a laggard.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is critical. The game's dense scenery, dynamic lighting, and volumetric cloud rendering place heavy demands on pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. The RX 580's 32 ROPs and 42.88 GPixel/s pixel rate explain why 4K performance collapses to 18 FPS at Ultra settings — the GPU simply cannot rasterize enough pixels per second at that resolution. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for the game's textures at 1080p and 1440p, but the 256.0 GB/s bandwidth becomes a limiting factor at 4K, where the memory subsystem must feed the shader units with exponentially more texture data.

The GPU's 53rd percentile ranking aligns closely with the combo's overall rank of 3,376 out of 3,714 (9th percentile). This correlation suggests that the RX 580 is the primary determinant of the system's performance in this game. The CPU, at the 71st percentile, has excess capability that the GPU cannot fully utilize, particularly at higher resolutions. The PassMark G3D score of 8,813 and DirectX 12 score of 43 further indicate that the GPU's modern API performance is adequate but not exceptional, which is consistent with its measured FPS results in this flight simulator.