Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

Microsoft Flight Simulator's performance envelope shifts dramatically when moving from 1080p to 4K, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D reveals a system that transitions from a CPU-leaning bottleneck at lower resolutions to a GPU-bound scenario at the highest pixel counts. At 1080p with Ultra settings, the average frame rate sits at 127 FPS, while dropping to Low settings pushes that figure to 157 FPS. The 30 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p underscores that even at the entry-level resolution, the graphics card still has headroom to stretch, but the CPU's 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 2.60 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clock is clearly doing heavy lifting to feed the frame pipeline.

Stepping up to 1440p, the scaling pattern tightens. The Ultra preset delivers 114 FPS, only 13 FPS behind the 1080p Ultra result of 127 FPS. That relatively modest drop indicates the RTX 5090 D, with its 32 GB of GDDR7 memory and 512-bit bus pushing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth, is still nowhere near saturated. The Low preset at 1440p yields 146 FPS, just 11 FPS less than the 1080p Low figure of 157 FPS. This shallow scaling curve from 1080p to 1440p suggests the CPU remains the primary limiter at these resolutions, since a purely GPU-bound workload would typically show a more pronounced frame rate penalty when pixel count rises by 78%.

The picture changes decisively at 4K. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset drops to 84 FPS, a 30 FPS decline from 1440p Ultra and a 43 FPS drop from 1080p Ultra. The High preset at 4K manages 88 FPS, while Medium holds 118 FPS and Low reaches 132 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 4K is 48 FPS, far wider than the 30 FPS spread seen at 1080p. This widening gap is the signature of a GPU that is finally being taxed by the 4K pixel workload. The RTX 5090 D's compute resources, including 21,760 shading units and a 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, are now the deciding factor rather than the CPU's thread scheduling.

The data indicates that the transition from 1440p to 4K is where the bottleneck shifts decisively. At 1080p, the CPU's 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and multi-thread score of 5,652 suggest it can maintain high frame rates without the GPU breaking a sweat. But at 4K, the GPU's pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s become the binding constraints. The 88 FPS at 4K High versus 120 FPS at 1440p High represents a 26.7% reduction, a steeper penalty than the 7% drop from 1080p High to 1440p High. This nonlinear scaling confirms that the RTX 5090 D is the limiting component only once resolution climbs past the 1440p threshold.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture part built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 92,200 million transistors into a 750 mm² die. Its clock behavior shows a base frequency of 2017 MHz and a boost of 2407 MHz, with memory running at 1750 MHz for 28 Gbps effective throughput. The 32 GB GDDR7 frame buffer, spread across a 512-bit interface, yields 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth — a figure that becomes critical when Microsoft Flight Simulator loads high-resolution terrain textures and photogrammetry data at 4K.

The GPU's benchmark pedigree places it in the 92nd percentile among all graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 77,712. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT at 78,940 (1.6% higher), the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB at 79,605 (2.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT at 76,904 (1.1% lower). These comparisons are notable because the RTX 5090 D's relative standing in synthetic tests does not perfectly predict its dominance in this flight simulator, where the measured FPS data shows it still has ample headroom at 1080p and 1440p.

The GPU's role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is most apparent in the 4K results. The jump from Medium to High at 3840x2160 costs 30 FPS (118 to 88), while the jump from High to Ultra costs a further 4 FPS (88 to 84). This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional draw calls and shadow complexity are not the primary cost drivers; rather, the resolution itself is the dominant factor. The GPU's 176 ROPs and 680 texture mapping units are tasked with filling 8.3 million pixels per frame at 4K, and the measured 84 FPS at Ultra represents a 10.7% drop from the 4K High result — a modest penalty for the visual uplift Ultra provides.

The RTX 5090 D's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) aligns well with Microsoft Flight Simulator's modern rendering pipeline. The GPU's Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 API compatibility ensure it can handle the game's diverse rendering paths. The 92nd percentile ranking, while strong, does not tell the whole story; the measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the system reaches 157 FPS, which is likely constrained by the CPU's single-thread performance rather than the GPU's raw throughput. The GPU's 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 compute is far beyond what this simulation requires at lower resolutions, making it effectively underutilized until 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a Rocket Lake-S desktop part with 6 cores and 12 threads, base clock of 2.60 GHz, and boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It carries a 65 W TDP and supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, yielding 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 12 MB shared L3 cache and 512 KB L2 per core provide the data locality needed for the simulation's complex flight dynamics and scenery streaming. Its 3DMark scores — 868 single-thread, 5,619 for 16 threads, and 5,652 for max threads — place it in the 71st percentile among all CPUs.

The CPU's benchmark rivals show a tight cluster: the AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17,120 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17,239 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17,278 (0.6% lower). This grouping indicates the 11400F's average benchmark score of 17,177 is competitive with a range of server and mobile parts, but its strength lies in consistent multi-threaded output rather than peak single-core performance. The Cinebench R23 results — 14,340 multi-core and 2,024 single-core — reinforce this profile.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most visible at 1080p, where frame rates plateau. At 1080p Low, the system hits 157 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it only drops to 127 FPS — a 30 FPS difference that reflects the GPU's increased workload, not a CPU limitation. The fact that 1080p High (129 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (127 FPS) are nearly identical suggests the CPU is the bottleneck at these settings; the GPU could render faster, but the CPU's 6 cores cannot issue draw calls quickly enough to push past roughly 130 FPS in this scenario.

The CPU's 3DMark 2-thread score of 1,691 and 4-thread score of 3,171 indicate that the game's primary thread benefits from the 4.40 GHz boost clock, but the multi-thread scaling to 5,652 at max threads shows diminishing returns beyond 8 threads. This aligns with Microsoft Flight Simulator's known behavior of relying heavily on a few main threads for simulation logic while offloading rendering to the GPU. The 11400F's 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs means it sits above the median but is not a top-tier part; in this pairing, it becomes the limiting factor at 1080p and even at 1440p, where the 146 FPS Low result still trails the GPU's theoretical ceiling.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate data spans three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a complete picture of this hardware combination's behavior. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 157 FPS, Medium averages 144 FPS with a documented range of 122 to 165 FPS, High averages 129 FPS, and Ultra averages 127 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 30 FPS, with the step from Low to Medium costing 13 FPS, Medium to High costing 15 FPS, and High to Ultra costing just 2 FPS. This indicates that the Ultra preset's additional visual features are relatively inexpensive at 1080p, since the CPU is already the binding constraint.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 146 FPS, Medium 134 FPS (range 114 to 154 FPS), High 120 FPS, and Ultra 114 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at each setting is modest: 11 FPS for Low, 10 FPS for Medium, 9 FPS for High, and 13 FPS for Ultra. This consistent 9-13 FPS penalty across all presets reinforces that the system is not GPU-bound at 1440p; a purely GPU-limited scenario would show a larger absolute drop for the higher-resolution workload. The 114 FPS at 1440p Ultra is still comfortably above 60 FPS, making this resolution viable for smooth gameplay even at maximum settings.

At 3840x2160, the results diverge more sharply. Low averages 132 FPS, Medium 118 FPS (range 100 to 135 FPS), High 88 FPS, and Ultra 84 FPS. The penalty from 1440p to 4K is substantial: 14 FPS for Low, 16 FPS for Medium, 32 FPS for High, and 30 FPS for Ultra. The larger drops at High and Ultra settings confirm that the GPU is now the limiting component, as the increased pixel count combined with higher-quality textures and effects saturates the RTX 5090 D's shading units. The 4K Ultra result of 84 FPS is still playable, but the 48 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 4K (versus 30 FPS at 1080p) shows how resolution amplifies the GPU's workload.

The combo's overall rank in this game is 166 out of 2,996 tested combinations, placing it in the top 5.5% of all hardware pairings for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking reflects the balance between the CPU's 71st percentile standing and the GPU's 92nd percentile performance, with the measured data showing that the pair achieves high frame rates across all tested configurations. The Medium preset at each resolution provides the only min/max FPS data points, with 1080p ranging from 122 to 165 FPS, 1440p from 114 to 154 FPS, and 4K from 100 to 135 FPS — all well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth simulation.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows 1440p Ultra at 114 FPS provides the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 84 FPS, which is still playable but leaves less headroom for complex scenery. The 1440p result is only 13 FPS lower than 1080p Ultra's 127 FPS, making it the sweet spot.

Q: Does the RTX 5090 D bottleneck the Core i5-11400F at 1080p?

A: Yes. At 1080p, the frame rates plateau around 127-157 FPS across all settings, with High (129 FPS) and Ultra (127 FPS) nearly identical. This indicates the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a 4.40 GHz boost clock, cannot feed the GPU fast enough to exploit its full potential at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU's 71st percentile ranking affect gameplay?

A: The 71st percentile places the Core i5-11400F above the median CPU in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17,177. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this translates to solid performance at 1080p and 1440p, but the system's 166th rank out of 2,996 combos shows that the GPU is doing more heavy lifting at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, Low averages 132 FPS while Ultra averages 84 FPS — a 48 FPS difference. The step from Low to Medium costs 14 FPS, Medium to High costs 30 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 4 FPS. The largest penalty comes from the Medium to High transition, suggesting that High settings' additional effects are the most demanding.

Q: How does the RTX 5090 D's 32 GB VRAM influence these results?

A: The 32 GB GDDR7 frame buffer with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth ensures that texture streaming and scenery loading are never constrained by memory capacity. At 4K, where large terrain datasets are common, this capacity prevents stuttering that could occur with smaller VRAM pools, allowing the measured 84 FPS Ultra result to remain stable.

Q: Is the 1440p Medium setting a good choice for consistent frame pacing?

A: The 1440p Medium preset averages 134 FPS with a documented range of 114 to 154 FPS. This 40 FPS variance is the widest among the Medium presets across resolutions, suggesting that complex scenery can cause frame time spikes. The 1440p High setting at 120 FPS average may offer more consistent pacing despite the lower mean.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for optimizing the Microsoft Flight Simulator experience with this hardware. At 1080p, all settings deliver frame rates above 127 FPS, making the choice purely about visual fidelity. The Ultra preset at 127 FPS is only 2 FPS slower than High at 129 FPS, so there is no reason to drop below Ultra at this resolution; the visual uplift comes at a negligible performance cost. The Low preset's 157 FPS would only be useful for competitive or testing scenarios, not for general play.

At 1440p, the Ultra preset at 114 FPS remains comfortably above 60 FPS and provides the best visual experience. The step down to High at 120 FPS recovers only 6 FPS, which is unlikely to be perceptible in a flight simulator where smoothness is more important than raw headroom. The Medium preset at 134 FPS offers a 20 FPS advantage over Ultra, but the documented minimum of 114 FPS suggests that frame pacing could be inconsistent in dense urban areas. For users prioritizing stability, High at 120 FPS presents the best compromise, as it maintains a higher average than Ultra while avoiding the wider frame time variance seen at Medium.

At 4K, the decision becomes more nuanced. The Ultra preset at 84 FPS is playable and delivers the full visual experience, but the High preset at 88 FPS is only 4 FPS faster — a marginal difference. The Medium preset at 118 FPS is the standout option, offering a 34 FPS improvement over Ultra while still looking significantly better than Low. The documented 100 to 135 FPS range at Medium 4K indicates that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate stays above the 60 FPS threshold. The Low preset at 132 FPS is the fastest 4K option, but its visual compromises are substantial for a simulation game where terrain detail and cockpit readability matter.

The overall recommendation is to use 1440p Ultra for the best balance of visual quality and performance, as the 114 FPS average provides ample headroom for the occasional complex scenery load. For 4K users, the Medium preset at 118 FPS offers the most compelling experience, as it maintains high frame rates while preserving enough visual detail to appreciate the sim's scenery. The High preset at 4K (88 FPS) is a reasonable alternative for those who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate headroom, but the data shows it delivers only 4 FPS more than Ultra, making Ultra the better choice if the GPU can sustain it.