Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of the Intel Core i5-11400F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT produces a distinctive performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator. With the data showing a combo rank of 863 out of 1795 tested configurations, this system sits near the middle of the pack, which is a curious position given the hardware involved. The measured FPS values across resolutions and presets reveal a system whose behavior changes character depending on the workload, and the numbers suggest a complex interaction between the six-core CPU and the RDNA 2 graphics card.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lives. At Low settings, the system delivers 128.2 FPS at 1920x1080, but this falls to 101.5 FPS at 2560x1440 and then to 72.6 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 43.4% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low, which indicates the GPU is being pushed harder as pixel count rises. The pattern intensifies at Ultra settings, where the frame rate goes from 69.7 FPS at 1080p to 57.3 FPS at 1440p and finally to 39.7 FPS at 4K — a 43.0% drop across the same resolution span.

What is notable is that the percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is larger than the drop from 1440p to 4K at every preset. At High settings, 1080p yields 74.1 FPS, 1440p yields 58.3 FPS (a 21.3% loss), and 4K yields 43.1 FPS (a 26.1% loss from 1440p). At Medium, the numbers are 96.5, 81.8, and 59.1 FPS respectively. The scaling behavior suggests that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions, but the CPU still has enough headroom to influence results at 1080p, where the differences between presets are more compressed.

The data implies that this combo is not resolution-agnostic. At 1080p Low, the frame rate of 128.2 FPS is high enough that the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads are likely the constraining factor, since the GPU has fewer pixels to render. Moving to 4K shifts the burden almost entirely onto the Radeon RX 6750 XT, whose 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth become critical. The measured values show a system that scales predictably with resolution, but the slope of the decline changes depending on the preset, hinting at varying degrees of GPU and CPU involvement.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 22 chip, and its specifications are directly relevant to the Flight Simulator results. The GPU has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, with base and boost clocks of 2150 MHz and 2600 MHz respectively. The memory subsystem consists of 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. These figures correlate with the measured FPS values: at 4K Ultra, the system manages 39.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many would consider smooth for a flight sim.

The VRAM capacity appears sufficient for the game’s demands at 4K, since the data does not show catastrophic drops that would indicate memory swapping. However, the pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s suggest that the GPU is working hard at high resolutions. At 4K High, the 43.1 FPS result is only 8.6% higher than the Ultra score of 39.7 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is nearing its practical limit in this scenario. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 32.9 FPS, showing that the GPU has a wide performance envelope but cannot maintain high frame rates at maximum quality settings.

The GPU’s benchmark scores place it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35327. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which scores 35787 and is 1.3% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 35264, which is 0.2% lower. These small deltas indicate that the RX 6750 XT is competitive with a range of graphics cards, but in Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the measured FPS values suggest that the GPU is the dominant factor at 4K. The FP32 performance of 13.31 TFLOPS and the 40 ray accelerators are part of the architecture, but the data does not isolate their specific impact on this title.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a six-core, twelve-thread processor from the Rocket Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth are relevant to how it feeds the GPU in Flight Simulator. The CPU’s benchmark results show a single-thread score of 868 in 3dmark and a multicore score of 5652, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14372. These numbers place the CPU in the 75th percentile of all CPUs.

In the measured FPS data, the CPU’s influence is most visible at 1080p Low, where the system reaches 128.2 FPS. This is the highest frame rate in the entire dataset, and it suggests that the CPU is capable of driving high framerates when the GPU is not the constraint. The drop from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is 26.7 FPS, which is a substantial reduction that cannot be attributed to CPU limitations alone. At 4K Low, the 72.6 FPS result is still above 60 FPS, indicating that the CPU has enough headroom to support playable frame rates even at the highest resolution when settings are minimized.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in benchmark scores include the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U at 17189 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-1260P at 17212 (-0.2%), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U at 17215 (-0.2%). These small differences in synthetic benchmarks do not translate directly to Flight Simulator performance, but they provide context for the CPU’s overall capability. The 65 W TDP and the fact that the multiplier is locked suggest a power-efficient design, but the boost clock of 4.40 GHz is what likely matters most for a game that relies on single-thread performance for simulation logic. The data shows that the CPU does not bottleneck the GPU at higher resolutions, but at 1080p with lower presets, the frame rates suggest a more balanced workload.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 128.2, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 39.7, which is the lowest score in the dataset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more likely to be the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: The data suggests the CPU is more influential at 1080p Low, where the 128.2 FPS result indicates the six-core processor can keep up with the GPU’s output.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 863 out of 1795 total combos, placing it in the middle of the tested pool.

Q: How much FPS is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 74.1 at 1920x1080 to 43.1 at 3840x2160, a loss of 31.0 FPS.

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for 4K in this game?

A: The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory appears sufficient, as the 4K results do not show any anomalous drops that would indicate memory capacity issues.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 863 out of 1795 tested configurations places this system slightly above the median, which is surprising given the hardware’s specifications. The GPU sits in the 79th percentile of all GPUs and the CPU in the 75th percentile, yet the combined result in this specific game is not exceptional. This suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator’s unique rendering demands do not favor this particular pairing as strongly as other games might.

The rank implies that a large number of other combinations deliver better performance in this title, even though the individual components are above average in their respective benchmark pools. The measured FPS values confirm this: at 4K Ultra, the 39.7 FPS result is below the 60 FPS target, and even at 1440p Ultra, the 57.3 FPS is just shy of smooth gameplay. The data indicates that this combo is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming at medium to high settings, but it struggles at 4K with maximum quality. The rank of 863 reflects a system that is competent but not outstanding for this specific flight simulator, and the benchmark data supports that conclusion.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers 128.2 FPS at Low, 96.5 FPS at Medium, 74.1 FPS at High, and 69.7 FPS at Ultra. The spread from Low to Ultra is 58.5 FPS, which is the largest range across all resolutions. At 2560x1440, the values are 101.5 FPS at Low, 81.8 FPS at Medium, 58.3 FPS at High, and 57.3 FPS at Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1.0 FPS, indicating that the GPU is reaching its limit at this resolution. At 3840x2160, the results are 72.6 FPS at Low, 59.1 FPS at Medium, 43.1 FPS at High, and 39.7 FPS at Ultra.

The data shows a consistent pattern where Low settings provide the highest frame rates at every resolution, and Ultra provides the lowest. The difference between Medium and High is more pronounced at 1440p and 4K than at 1080p, suggesting that the GPU’s shading units and texture units are more stressed at higher resolutions. The 4K Low result of 72.6 FPS is particularly notable because it demonstrates that the system can achieve playable frame rates at 4K if settings are reduced, while 4K High and Ultra fall below 45 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

For players seeking the smoothest experience, the data points to Low settings at 1080p as the only configuration that exceeds 120 FPS, with 128.2 FPS being the maximum measured value. However, this comes at the cost of visual fidelity, and the Medium preset at 1080p still delivers 96.5 FPS, which is a more balanced choice for those who want better graphics without sacrificing too much performance. At 1440p, Medium settings provide 81.8 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold, while High settings drop to 58.3 FPS, which is borderline.

At 4K, the only preset that maintains 60 FPS or higher is Low, with 72.6 FPS. Medium at 4K produces 59.1 FPS, which is close to 60 but not quite there, and High and Ultra fall to 43.1 and 39.7 FPS respectively. The data suggests that the best experience for this combo depends on the target resolution. For 1080p, Medium or High offer a good trade-off, with High delivering 74.1 FPS. For 1440p, Medium is the recommended choice due to its 81.8 FPS result, while High is acceptable at 58.3 FPS for those who prioritize visuals. For 4K, Low is the only viable option for smooth gameplay, though Medium at 59.1 FPS is close enough that some players may find it acceptable. The measured values indicate that this system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with 4K requiring significant settings compromises to maintain playable frame rates.