Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs the Intel Core i5-11400F with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, a combination that places 577th out of 3,714 tested combos in this specific title. The data reveals a system where the CPU and GPU are locked in a delicate balance, with performance shifting dramatically based on resolution and settings. The measured results show a strong, yet sometimes constrained, partnership that rewards careful configuration choices.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a clear and expected trend: performance degrades as resolution increases, but the rate of that degradation tells a story about which component is holding the system back. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 157 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 146 FPS, a modest 7% reduction. However, jumping to 4K Low yields 114 FPS, which is a 27% drop from the 1440p figure. This pattern suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is doing more of the heavy lifting, allowing the GPU to flex its muscles. The 7900 XTX is clearly capable of pushing frame rates well above 150 FPS at 1080p, but the i5-11400F appears to be the limiting factor there.

The situation reverses at higher settings. At Ultra, the 1080p average is 107 FPS, the 1440p average is 86 FPS, and the 4K average is 64 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.6%, and from 1440p to 4K is 25.6%. This steeper decline at higher settings indicates that the GPU is becoming the primary bottleneck as the graphical load increases. The RX 7900 XTX, with its 24 GB of GDDR6 memory and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth, is being pushed harder, and the frame rate scales more directly with pixel count. At 4K Ultra, the system is clearly GPU-bound, delivering 64 FPS, which is a demanding scenario for any hardware.

The medium settings provide a useful midpoint for analysis. At 1080p Medium, the average is 144 FPS, with a minimum of 122 FPS and a maximum of 165 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average is 120 FPS, with min/max of 102/138. At 4K Medium, the average is 89 FPS, with min/max of 76/102. The scaling here is nearly linear: 144 to 120 is a 16.7% drop, and 120 to 89 is a 25.8% drop. This suggests a more balanced load between CPU and GPU, where neither component is completely dominating the performance equation. The data implies that the i5-11400F can keep up with the 7900 XTX at medium settings up to 1440p, but at 4K, the GPU starts to become the deciding factor.

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Rocket Lake architecture, running on a 14 nm process node. Its base clock is 2.60 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 14,340 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,024 in single-core. These scores place it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a solid mid-range performer. The measured FPS results in Microsoft Flight Simulator suggest that this CPU is sufficient to feed the powerful GPU at lower resolutions, but it may not be the ideal partner for maximizing frame rates at 1080p.

At 1080p Low, the system hits 157 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's limit for this simulation. The game relies heavily on single-thread performance for its core simulation logic, and the i5-11400F's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2,024 is respectable but not top-tier. The data shows that moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low only reduces FPS by 11 frames, which is a small penalty. This indicates that the CPU is still able to maintain its frame pacing even as the GPU has more pixels to render. However, at 4K Low, the CPU's role diminishes, and the GPU's raw power takes over.

The CPU's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for this workload. The benchmark results show that the i5-11400F performs close to the AMD EPYC 7H12, which is only 0.3% faster in average score, and the Intel Core i5-12450H, which is 0.4% slower. This suggests that the CPU is well-matched to other mid-range parts. The 6 cores and 12 threads are enough for Flight Simulator's parallel tasks, such as terrain loading and AI traffic, but the game's frame rate is often dictated by the main thread. The data implies that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at 4K Ultra, where the GPU is clearly the limiting factor, but it is a constraining factor at 1080p where the GPU is underutilized.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in terms of playable frame rates?

A: The data shows that all tested resolutions are playable. At 1440p Ultra, the combo averages 86 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it averages 64 FPS. For a smoother experience, 1440p Medium delivers 120 FPS, while 4K Medium achieves 89 FPS. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes visual fidelity or raw frame rate.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance affect the game?

A: The i5-11400F scores 2,024 in Cinebench R23 single-core. This is a key metric for Flight Simulator, as the simulation logic is heavily dependent on single-thread performance. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 157 FPS, which is likely close to the CPU's limit. This indicates that the CPU is a limiting factor at lower resolutions.

Q: Is the GPU's 24 GB of VRAM necessary for this game?

A: The RX 7900 XTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is more than sufficient for Flight Simulator. The measured results show no signs of VRAM limitations, as the FPS scales predictably with resolution and settings. The high memory bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s helps at 4K, but the frame rates are more influenced by the GPU's compute power.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: The combo is ranked 577th out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 15.5% of all systems tested, indicating that it is a strong performer for this game, though there are faster combinations available.

Q: What is the difference between 1080p Ultra and 4K Ultra performance?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the system averages 107 FPS. At 4K Ultra, the average drops to 64 FPS, a 40.2% reduction. This large drop is expected as the GPU must render four times the number of pixels, and the data suggests that the RX 7900 XTX is the primary bottleneck at 4K Ultra.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU at 1080p?

A: Yes, the data suggests this is the case. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 157 FPS, which is a very high frame rate. However, the GPU is capable of much more, as seen by its synthetic benchmarks. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are not enough to push frame rates higher at this resolution, making it the limiting factor.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX achieves a rank of 577 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 84.5th percentile of all tested systems, meaning it outperforms the majority of combinations in this game. The rank is a strong indicator that this is a well-balanced setup for the title, even if it does not sit at the very top of the charts.

The CPU's percentile rank is 71, while the GPU's is 64, but the combined rank is higher than either individual component's percentile might suggest. This implies that the pairing works synergistically. The i5-11400F, despite being a mid-range part, provides enough performance to allow the RX 7900 XTX to operate effectively. The data shows that the combo is not bottlenecked by a single component, but rather that both parts are contributing to the overall performance.

The rank of 577 is notable because it indicates that this system can handle Flight Simulator at high settings across multiple resolutions. The measured FPS numbers show that the combo is capable of delivering playable frame rates at 4K Ultra (64 FPS) and excellent frame rates at 1080p Medium (144 FPS). This versatility is a key reason for its high ranking. The data suggests that users with this combo can expect a smooth experience at 1440p with high settings, making it a versatile option for the game.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture and features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 2498 MHz, and it has 6144 shading units. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 31,238 in Passmark G3D and 6,841 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These are high scores, placing it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs. The measured FPS results show that the GPU is the dominant factor at higher resolutions and settings.

At 4K Ultra, the GPU is clearly the limiting component, as the system averages 64 FPS. The high memory bandwidth is crucial here, as the game needs to stream vast amounts of terrain and texture data. The 24 GB VRAM is more than enough, but the core compute power of the GPU is what determines the frame rate. The drop from 1440p Ultra (86 FPS) to 4K Ultra (64 FPS) is 25.6%, which is consistent with the increased pixel count.

The GPU's performance at lower settings is also telling. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 157 FPS, but this is limited by the CPU. The GPU has more headroom, but it cannot be utilized due to the CPU's constraints. At 1440p Low, the FPS drops to 146, showing that the GPU is still not fully stressed. It is only at 4K Low (114 FPS) that the GPU starts to become the primary bottleneck. The data indicates that the RX 7900 XTX is a powerful card that is held back by the i5-11400F at lower resolutions, but it shines at 4K where its raw power is fully utilized.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured data provides a comprehensive look at the combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings levels.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: Average 157 FPS
• Medium: Average 144 FPS, minimum 122 FPS, maximum 165 FPS
• High: Average 112 FPS
• Ultra: Average 107 FPS

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: Average 146 FPS
• Medium: Average 120 FPS, minimum 102 FPS, maximum 138 FPS
• High: Average 91 FPS
• Ultra: Average 86 FPS

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: Average 114 FPS
• Medium: Average 89 FPS, minimum 76 FPS, maximum 102 FPS
• High: Average 67 FPS
• Ultra: Average 64 FPS

These numbers paint a clear picture. At 1080p, the system is CPU-limited at low and medium settings, as the FPS is high but does not scale much with GPU load. The gap between Medium (144 FPS) and Ultra (107 FPS) is 25.7%, showing that the GPU is being used more at higher settings. At 1440p, the CPU is still a factor at Low (146 FPS), but the GPU becomes more important at Ultra (86 FPS), a 41.1% drop from Low to Ultra. At 4K, the GPU is the clear bottleneck, with the FPS dropping from 114 at Low to 64 at Ultra, a 43.9% reduction. The Medium settings provide the most balanced experience, with minimum FPS figures that are still playable at all resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and preference for frame rate versus visual quality. For a 1080p monitor, the Medium preset is the best choice. It delivers an average of 144 FPS with a minimum of 122 FPS, ensuring a smooth experience. The Ultra preset at 1080p offers 107 FPS, which is still playable, but the 34% improvement in frame rate from Ultra to Medium is significant, and the visual difference between Medium and Ultra may not justify the performance cost.

At 1440p, the Medium preset is again the sweet spot, providing 120 FPS on average with a minimum of 102 FPS. This is a high frame rate that will be smooth on most displays. The High preset at 1440p drops to 91 FPS, which is still acceptable, but the Medium preset offers a 31.9% performance boost. The Ultra preset at 86 FPS is also playable, but for competitive or fast-paced gameplay, Medium is recommended.

For 4K users, the Medium preset is the best option for a balanced experience, offering 89 FPS on average with a minimum of 76 FPS. This is sufficient for a smooth experience on most 4K displays. The High preset at 67 FPS is also playable, but the Medium preset provides a 32.8% improvement. The Ultra preset at 64 FPS is on the edge of playability, and users who prioritize frame rate should stick with Medium. The Low preset at 4K offers 114 FPS, but this comes at a significant visual cost. The data suggests that Medium settings provide the best overall experience across all resolutions, offering a strong balance between visual fidelity and performance.