Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data across the three tested resolutions reveals a clear and predictable scaling pattern, with the most dramatic drop occurring between 1440p and 4K. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 98.7 FPS, which falls to 81.7 FPS at 1440p (a 17% reduction) and then to 59.7 FPS at 4K (a further 27% drop from 1440p). This accelerating decline as resolution increases points directly at the GPU as the primary limiting component at higher pixel counts.

The pattern holds across every settings tier. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at High settings, the frame rate drops from 61.8 to 47.0 FPS, a 24% decrease. The same resolution step at Ultra settings sees a smaller relative decline, from 56.7 to 43.7 FPS, a 23% drop. However, the jump from 1440p to 4K is consistently steeper across all presets: High falls from 47.0 to 32.2 FPS (31% loss), while Ultra drops from 43.7 to 34.5 FPS (21% loss). The fact that 4K High (32.2 FPS) and 4K Ultra (34.5 FPS) are so close together suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily saturated that additional graphical complexity has diminishing impact on the already strained renderer.

What does this imply about the system balance? The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, appears to keep pace adequately at lower resolutions where the GPU is less burdened. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 42 FPS (from 98.7 down to 56.7), indicating headroom for the GPU to flex its capabilities. But at 4K, that same spread narrows to just 25.2 FPS (from 59.7 down to 34.5), suggesting the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute resources are the binding constraint. The RX 6600 XT's 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are likely being pushed to their limits at 4K, especially with the flight simulator's extensive terrain and scenery streaming demands.

Settings Recommendations

Benchmark results indicate that the most sensible settings target depends heavily on the user's display resolution. At 1080p, Medium settings (77.4 FPS) offer a substantial 25% uplift over High (61.8 FPS) while still providing a smooth experience. The jump from Medium to Ultra (56.7 FPS) costs 21% of the frame rate for what is likely a marginal visual gain in a flight sim where readability of instruments and terrain matters more than fine texture detail.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more nuanced. Medium delivers 64.4 FPS, which is perfectly playable, while High (47.0 FPS) and Ultra (43.7 FPS) both dip below the 60 FPS threshold. For users with 1440p displays, Medium represents the sweet spot — it provides 64.4 FPS, which is 37% higher than Ultra's 43.7 FPS, and the visual difference between Medium and High in a flight simulator is often less noticeable than in fast-paced shooters due to the slower camera movement.

At 4K, the data paints a grim picture for high-fidelity enthusiasts. Even Low settings only achieve 59.7 FPS, barely touching 60, while Medium drops to 45.7 FPS and High falls to 32.2 FPS. The recommendation here is clear: if 4K is a must, Low settings are the only tier that approaches playable frame rates. The alternative is to accept that 4K is not a realistic target for this GPU in this title, and instead use 1440p Medium as the primary configuration.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F brings 6 cores and 12 threads to this pairing, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark profile shows a strong single-thread score of 868 in 3DMark single-thread and 204 in Cinebench R15 single-core, which is relevant because flight simulators often rely heavily on a single main thread for physics and flight model calculations. The CPU's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth provide adequate data feeding for the GPU.

The CPU's percentile rank of 75 among all tested CPUs indicates it sits comfortably in the upper quartile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (deltaPct 0) and Intel Core i7-1260P (deltaPct -0.2), showing it is competitive with mobile-class chips in raw throughput. However, its desktop-oriented design with a 65 W TDP and PCIe Gen 4 support for 20 lanes means it can sustain boost clocks more consistently than mobile counterparts.

How does this translate to game performance? The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low (98.7 FPS), the CPU is clearly not the bottleneck — the GPU is still being fed sufficiently to produce near-triple-digit frame rates. But at 1080p Ultra (56.7 FPS), the CPU's limitations may start to emerge, as the frame rate drop from Medium to Ultra (77.4 to 56.7, a 27% decline) is larger than the corresponding GPU workload increase would suggest. This hints that the CPU's single-thread performance, while respectable, cannot fully compensate for the GPU's increasing demands at higher settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Core i5-11400F and RX 6600 XT achieves a rank of 1269 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower portion of the distribution, around the 29th percentile from the top. The data suggests that this pairing, while competent for many titles, is not particularly well-suited to the extreme demands of this flight simulator, which is known for pushing both CPU and GPU to their limits.

Breaking down the contributing factors, the CPU's individual performance (percentile 75 among all CPUs) is notably stronger than the combo's overall rank would imply. Similarly, the GPU's percentile of 71 among all GPUs is solidly mid-to-upper range. Yet the combined rank of 1269/1795 indicates a synergy issue — the components are individually capable, but together they fall short of what the game demands. This could be due to the game's unique rendering pipeline, which may not scale well with this particular CPU-GPU interaction, or it could reflect that the game's benchmark methodology weights certain workloads (like 4K Ultra) more heavily, where this combo struggles.

Notably, the GPU's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (deltaPct 0.1) and RTX 3070 (deltaPct -0.9), showing that the RX 6600 XT sits in a competitive performance band. However, the CPU's nearest rivals are mostly mobile processors (Ryzen 7 5700U, Core i7-1260P), which suggests the desktop i5-11400F is not leveraging its desktop-class advantages as effectively as it could in this specific game.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process with 11,060 million transistors. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a modest figure for a GPU targeting high-resolution gaming. The memory clock runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the GPU boost clock reaches 2589 MHz and the game clock sits at 2359 MHz.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a PassMark G3D score of 16461 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1804, placing it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the GTX 980 Ti (deltaPct 0.1) and RTX 3070 (deltaPct -0.9), which illustrates that while the RX 6600 XT is competitive, it is not pushing into the upper echelons of GPU performance.

In this game, the GPU's role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p, the GPU has enough headroom to deliver playable frame rates across all settings, but at 4K, it becomes the clear bottleneck. The 128-bit memory bus and 8 GB VRAM capacity are likely limiting factors for a game that streams massive amounts of terrain and texture data. The FP32 throughput of 10.60 TFLOPS is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K data suggests the GPU's compute resources are overwhelmed when rendering the game's detailed scenery at that pixel count.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: At 4K, only Low settings achieve a playable frame rate (59.7 FPS). Medium drops to 45.7 FPS, High to 32.2 FPS, and Ultra to 34.5 FPS, making 4K a marginal target for this hardware.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 1080p display?

A: Medium settings at 1080p deliver 77.4 FPS, which is 25% higher than High (61.8 FPS) and 37% higher than Ultra (56.7 FPS). Medium provides the best balance of visual quality and smoothness.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score of 27985 is nearly identical to the GTX 980 Ti (27956, deltaPct 0.1) and slightly below the RTX 3070 (28238, deltaPct -0.9).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1440p?

A: At 1440p, the frame rate drop from Low (81.7 FPS) to Medium (64.4 FPS) is 21%, and from Medium to Ultra (43.7 FPS) is 32%. The steep decline suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1269 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of tested systems for this specific title.

Q: Does the CPU's single-thread performance matter for this game?

A: The CPU's 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and Cinebench R15 single-core score of 204 indicate strong single-thread capability, which is relevant because flight simulators often rely on a primary simulation thread.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 98.7 FPS
• Medium: 77.4 FPS
• High: 61.8 FPS
• Ultra: 56.7 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 81.7 FPS
• Medium: 64.4 FPS
• High: 47.0 FPS
• Ultra: 43.7 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 59.7 FPS
• Medium: 45.7 FPS
• High: 32.2 FPS
• Ultra: 34.5 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: at every resolution, Low settings provide the highest frame rate, and the gap between settings tiers narrows as resolution increases. The anomaly of 4K Ultra (34.5 FPS) being higher than 4K High (32.2 FPS) suggests potential run-to-run variance in the game's dynamic scenery loading, though the difference is within a margin that could be attributed to the simulator's unpredictable workload. Overall, this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, with 1440p Medium being a viable alternative for users willing to accept 64.4 FPS.