Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F brings a 6-core, 12-thread configuration based on Rocket Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.60 GHz can boost up to 4.40 GHz, and with 12 MB of shared L3 cache, the processor sits in the 71st percentile of all CPUs tested. The CPU's average benchmark score of 17177 places it nearly dead-even with its nearest rivals: it trails the AMD EPYC 7H12 by just 0.3% (17120), sits 0.4% behind the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239), and is 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17278), while leading the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U by 0.6% (17074). This tight clustering suggests the i5-11400F delivers exactly mainstream-level compute performance — neither a bottleneck nor a standout.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS data reveals a peculiar relationship between CPU capability and game performance. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 78 FPS average — the highest recorded number across all tested configurations. Yet at 1080p with Ultra settings, the average drops to 43 FPS. This 35 FPS swing at the same resolution points to the game's engine being heavily influenced by graphics workload rather than purely CPU throughput. However, the CPU's single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 868, Cinebench R23 single-core of 2024) matters here because flight simulators typically rely on a primary simulation thread. The boost clock of 4.40 GHz provides the headroom needed for that thread, while the 6 physical cores handle ancillary tasks like terrain streaming and AI traffic.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for the simulation's data demands. Notably, the i5-11400F has no integrated graphics, meaning the GTX 1660 SUPER handles all rendering duties. The processor's 3dmark_16_threads score of 5619 versus max_threads score of 5652 shows near-linear scaling, indicating the 12 threads are well-utilized in synthetic workloads. Yet in-game, the FPS deltas between settings presets at the same resolution (e.g., 1080p Low 78 FPS vs. 1080p High 45 FPS) are far larger than any CPU benchmark variance would predict. This suggests that while the CPU provides a solid foundation, the game's performance ceiling is dictated more by the graphics pipeline and memory subsystem than raw compute.

# FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves, and at which settings?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 78, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next best is 63 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 60 FPS at 1080p Medium. This indicates that Low presets unlock the full potential of the hardware, while higher presets impose increasingly heavy rendering costs.

Q: How does the CPU's multi-threaded performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Based on average benchmark scores, the i5-11400F (17177) is essentially tied with its closest competitors. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7H12 (17120), 0.4% behind the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239), 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17278), and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17074). The differences are under 1%, making them statistically negligible.

Q: At what resolution and settings does the combo maintain 60 FPS or higher?

A: Three configurations hit 60 FPS or above: 1080p Low at 78 FPS, 1440p Low at 63 FPS, and 1080p Medium at exactly 60 FPS (with min FPS of 51 and max FPS of 69). No High or Ultra preset reaches 60 FPS at any resolution, and no 4K setting achieves even 50 FPS.

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

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 63 FPS while Ultra averages 35 FPS — a 28 FPS drop. This 44% reduction from Low to Ultra at the same resolution demonstrates the significant GPU workload increase that higher presets demand, even when resolution stays constant.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark percentile compare to the CPU's?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER sits in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the i5-11400F sits in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. This 18-percentile gap suggests the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing. The GPU's average benchmark score of 12986 trails the CPU's 17177 average, reinforcing that the graphics card likely limits performance in demanding presets.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS recorded for the Medium preset across resolutions?

A: For Medium settings, the measured ranges are: at 1080p, min 51 FPS and max 69 FPS (average 60); at 1440p, min 41 FPS and max 56 FPS (average 49); at 4K, min 31 FPS and max 41 FPS (average 36). These ranges show consistent scaling — as resolution increases, both the floor and ceiling drop proportionally.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. Taking the Medium preset as the most complete dataset (it has min/max values for all three resolutions), the average FPS progresses from 60 at 1080p, to 49 at 1440p, to 36 at 4K. This represents an 18% drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 27% drop from 1440p to 4K. The Low preset shows even steeper relative declines: 78 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p (19% drop), and 46 FPS at 4K (27% drop from 1440p).

For the High preset, the progression is 45 FPS at 1080p, 37 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K — again roughly a 20% decline per step up in resolution. The Ultra preset mirrors this: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these percentage drops across all presets is telling. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions because the CPU's workload (simulation logic, physics, AI) doesn't change with resolution. Instead, FPS drops by roughly 20-27% with each resolution increase, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

This pattern strongly implies that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting component at higher resolutions. The GPU's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth and 192-bit bus width must render increasingly more pixels as resolution climbs. At 4K, the GPU's pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and FP32 throughput of 5.027 TFLOPS are simply insufficient to maintain playable frame rates on High or Ultra presets, where averages sit at 27 and 26 FPS respectively. Even at 1080p, the difference between Low (78 FPS) and Ultra (43 FPS) shows that the GPU's rendering pipeline — not CPU compute — determines the ceiling. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads provide enough headroom that even at 4K Low (46 FPS), the simulation logic doesn't drag performance below what the GPU can output.

# Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Examining the measured FPS rows, the Medium preset emerges as the most balanced choice for this hardware combination. At 1080p Medium, the combo delivers 60 FPS average with a range of 51-69 FPS — this is the only configuration that hits the 60 FPS target while offering something beyond the bare minimum visual fidelity. The Low preset at 1080p achieves 78 FPS but sacrifices significant visual quality, which in a flight simulator matters for spotting terrain details, runway markings, and other aircraft. The High preset at 1080p drops to 45 FPS, which is below the smoothness threshold most users prefer, and Ultra at 1080p is even worse at 43 FPS.

At 1440p, the Medium preset provides 49 FPS average (41-56 range), which is playable but not ideal for a simulation that requires precise control. The Low preset at 1440p hits 63 FPS, making it the only 1440p option that exceeds 60 FPS. However, the visual compromise of Low at 1440p may not be worth the extra 14 FPS over Medium. For users with 1080p displays, Medium is clearly the sweet spot — it maintains 60 FPS while providing a meaningful upgrade over Low. For 1440p display owners, Low is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS, but Medium at 49 FPS is arguably a better trade-off between smoothness and visual quality.

At 4K, no preset achieves even 50 FPS. The best option is Low at 46 FPS, followed by Medium at 36 FPS, High at 27 FPS, and Ultra at 26 FPS. Given that 4K Medium (36 FPS) is 10 FPS below the Low preset's 46 FPS, and that 4K High (27 FPS) is barely distinguishable from Ultra (26 FPS) in performance terms, users at 4K should either accept Low settings for playability or consider reducing resolution to 1440p. The data clearly indicates that Medium at 1080p or 1440p represents the optimal balance of frame rate and visual fidelity for this combo.

# How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 3143 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 15.4% of all configurations tested — the 571st percentile from the bottom, or conversely, only about 15% of tested combos perform worse. This low ranking is notable given that the CPU itself sits in the 71st percentile of all CPUs and the GPU in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The disparity between component-level percentiles and the combo's in-game rank suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly demanding on the graphics subsystem, and the GTX 1660 SUPER's mid-range standing drags the overall combo ranking down.

Interpreting this rank in context: with 3714 combos tested, a rank of 3143 means that 571 combos perform worse and 3142 perform better. The combo is positioned in the lower quartile of performance for this specific game, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing sub-60 FPS on most presets above Medium at 1080p. Flight simulators are notoriously GPU-intensive due to detailed terrain rendering, volumetric clouds, and complex lighting — all of which tax the GTX 1660 SUPER's 1408 shading units and 48 ROPs. The GPU's 6 GB VRAM capacity also becomes a constraint at higher resolutions and presets, as the game's texture streaming can exceed this allocation.

The combo's rank relative to its component percentiles tells a story of imbalance. The CPU is more than capable (71st percentile), but the GPU is merely average (53rd percentile). This mismatch suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the limiting factor in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Users with this combo would likely see significant improvement from upgrading the GPU while keeping the CPU, as the i5-11400F has headroom to feed a more powerful graphics card. The rank of 3143/3714 serves as a quantitative confirmation that this hardware combination is better suited for less demanding titles or for users willing to accept Medium/Low settings in this simulator.

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

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 78 FPS average. This is the highest FPS recorded for this combo in any configuration.
• Medium: 60 FPS average, with minimum 51 FPS and maximum 69 FPS. This provides a playable experience with moderate visual quality.
• High: 45 FPS average. A noticeable 15 FPS drop from Medium, indicating a significant graphics workload increase.
• Ultra: 43 FPS average. Only 2 FPS below High, suggesting diminishing returns at the top preset.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 63 FPS average. Remains above 60 FPS, showing the GPU can handle this preset at higher resolution.
• Medium: 49 FPS average, with minimum 41 FPS and maximum 56 FPS. The range shows occasional dips below the 45 FPS threshold.
• High: 37 FPS average. A 12 FPS drop from Medium at the same resolution.
• Ultra: 35 FPS average. Within 2 FPS of High, mirroring the 1080p pattern.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 46 FPS average. The only 4K preset that approaches playability, but still below 50 FPS.
• Medium: 36 FPS average, with minimum 31 FPS and maximum 41 FPS. The minimum FPS of 31 indicates stutter-prone performance.
• High: 27 FPS average. Below the 30 FPS threshold, making it borderline unplayable.
• Ultra: 26 FPS average. Essentially identical to High, showing the GPU is fully saturated.

Cross-resolution analysis: At Low settings, the FPS progression is 78 (1080p) → 63 (1440p) → 46 (4K), representing drops of 19% and 27% respectively. At Medium, it's 60 → 49 → 36, with drops of 18% and 27%. At High, it's 45 → 37 → 27, with drops of 18% and 27%. At Ultra, it's 43 → 35 → 26, with drops of 19% and 26%. The consistency of these percentage drops across all presets reinforces the GPU-bound nature of the workload — the relative cost of each resolution increase is uniform regardless of visual preset.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER, based on the TU116 chip with Turing architecture on TSMC's 12 nm process, brings 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. Its base clock of 1530 MHz boosts to 1785 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GPU houses 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, delivering 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s. These specifications place the GPU in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12986. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile (12940, 0.4% higher), AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA Tesla M2090 (13075, 0.7% lower), and AMD Radeon 740M (12870, 0.9% higher).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical factor. The game streams high-resolution textures for terrain, aircraft, and scenery, and at 4K with High or Ultra presets, the VRAM allocation likely approaches or exceeds the 6 GB limit. This would explain why the 4K High and Ultra presets both plateau around 26-27 FPS — the GPU is likely swapping textures or reducing detail to fit within memory constraints. The GDDR6 memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, while respectable for the era, is strained when rendering 8.3 million pixels at 4K with high-quality textures. The 192-bit bus width limits how quickly data can be fed to the rendering pipeline, and at 4K, the pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s becomes a bottleneck.

The GPU's benchmark results show interesting characteristics: its DirectX 12 score (50) is notably lower than DirectX 11 (104) and DirectX 9 (189) scores, suggesting the Turing architecture's DX12 implementation is not its strength. This could partially explain the FPS drops on higher presets, which may utilize more advanced DX12 features. The OpenCL score of 52490 and Vulkan score of 57102 indicate decent compute capability, but flight simulators primarily stress the rasterization pipeline. The GPU's 48 ROPs are a limiting factor for fill-rate-heavy scenes like dense cloud layers and detailed terrain — exactly what Microsoft Flight Simulator presents. At 4K, the 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate translates to a theoretical maximum of about 85.68/8.3 = 10.3 FPS if the GPU were purely fill-rate bound, but the measured 26-46 FPS shows that other factors (shader throughput, bandwidth) are also in play. The 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 performance is sufficient for Low/Medium presets at 1080p and 1440p, but insufficient for High/Ultra at any resolution, as evidenced by the sub-50 FPS averages on those presets.