Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX combination delivers a robust experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with benchmark data showing a clear hierarchy of performance across settings and resolutions. The measured frame rates indicate that this pairing is capable of high refresh rate gameplay at 1080p and smooth 60+ FPS experiences at 4K Ultra, though the scaling patterns reveal distinct bottlenecks depending on the workload.

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process node. It operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip features 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, alongside 80 KB of L1 per core. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel memory bus, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, the processor scores 21,279 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,004 in single-core, while Geekbench shows 10,971 multi-core and 2,301 single-core results. The passmark multithread score stands at 25,032, with a single-thread score of 3,634. The CPU sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25,236. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13620H (avg score 25,201, deltaPct 0.1), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (avg score 25,365, deltaPct -0.5), the AMD EPYC 9474F (avg score 25,103, deltaPct 0.5), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 (avg score 25,099, deltaPct 0.5). These near-identical scores indicate the i5-13400F performs within a tight 1% band of its closest competitors.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant because the game's flight model and world simulation logic are heavily dependent on single-thread performance. The 3,004 single-core score in Cinebench R23 suggests strong per-core capability, which translates into consistent frame pacing. The 16 threads handle background tasks like terrain streaming and AI traffic, but the data shows that at lower resolutions, the CPU becomes the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the average FPS reaches 188.9, which is substantially higher than at 4K Low (114.2 FPS), but the gap between 1080p and 1440p at Low settings (188.9 vs 150.2) is larger than the gap between 1440p and 4K (150.2 vs 114.2), suggesting the CPU is saturating at lower pixel counts.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is built on the Navi 31 chip using a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. It features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1929 MHz, with a boost clock of 2498 MHz and a game clock of 2365 MHz. Memory operates at 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective speed. The card has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units, alongside 96 ray tracing cores. Compute performance reaches 61.39 TFLOPS FP32 and 122.8 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The TDP is 355 W, requiring a 750 W suggested PSU, and it uses a dual-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors.

In GPU benchmarks, the RX 7900 XTX scores 31,238 in PassMark G3D and 31238 in PassMark GPU compute, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 189,573 and Vulkan score of 192,597. The GPU sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44,019. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (avg score 44,195, deltaPct -0.4), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (avg score 43,667, deltaPct 0.8), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (avg score 43,313, deltaPct 1.6), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (avg score 44,900, deltaPct -2). The RX 7900 XTX performs within 2% of these alternatives, showing it is a high-end part.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU handles the rendering of detailed terrain, aircraft models, and lighting effects. The 24 GB VRAM is more than sufficient for the game's highest texture presets, even at 4K resolution. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 61.3, which is the lowest measured value across all configurations, indicating the GPU is fully utilized at this setting. The difference between 4K High (65.3 FPS) and 4K Ultra (61.3 FPS) is only 4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity without a proportional performance penalty, likely due to the GPU's ample memory bandwidth and compute resources.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts. At Low settings, the performance drops from 188.9 FPS at 1080p to 150.2 FPS at 1440p (a 20.5% decrease), and then to 114.2 FPS at 4K (a 24% decrease from 1440p). This consistent scaling suggests the GPU is becoming more involved as resolution increases, but the CPU is still providing enough headroom to maintain high frame rates.

At Medium settings, the pattern is similar: 149.4 FPS at 1080p, 117.5 FPS at 1440p (21.4% drop), and 88.9 FPS at 4K (24.3% drop). The relative drops are nearly identical to Low, indicating that the Medium preset does not shift the bottleneck significantly.

At High settings, the frame rates are 109.8 FPS at 1080p, 88.9 FPS at 1440p (19% drop), and 65.3 FPS at 4K (26.5% drop). The larger drop from 1440p to 4K compared to the other presets suggests that the GPU is starting to become the limiting factor at High settings, as the increased visual complexity demands more from the rendering pipeline.

At Ultra settings, the performance is 105 FPS at 1080p, 83.1 FPS at 1440p (20.9% drop), and 61.3 FPS at 4K (26.2% drop). The 4K Ultra result is the lowest measured, and the scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a similar percentage drop to High, confirming that the GPU is the primary constraint at the highest resolution and settings.

The data indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is the limiting component, as the frame rates at Low (188.9 FPS) and Medium (149.4 FPS) are far higher than what the GPU would typically deliver at those settings. At 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, especially at High and Ultra presets, where the frame rates converge to the 60-65 FPS range. The 24 GB VRAM ensures no memory capacity issues, so the performance drop is purely due to compute and fill rate limits.

FAQ

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

A: The highest measured average FPS is 188.9, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25,236, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-13620H (25,201) and 0.5% higher than the AMD EPYC 9474F (25,103). It is 0.5% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365).

Q: At which resolution and settings does the GPU become the primary performance limiter?

A: The data shows that at 4K resolution with High and Ultra settings, the GPU is the limiting component. The frame rates drop to 65.3 FPS at High and 61.3 FPS at Ultra, which are the lowest measured values, indicating the GPU is fully saturated.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between 1080p Low and 4K Ultra?

A: The difference is 127.6 FPS, with the 1080p Low configuration achieving 188.9 FPS and the 4K Ultra configuration achieving 61.3 FPS.

Q: Does the RX 7900 XTX outperform the RTX 4090 Mobile in this game?

A: The RX 7900 XTX has an average benchmark score of 44,019, which is 0.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667). However, this is a general benchmark comparison, not a game-specific measurement.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 1440p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the frame rate drops from 117.5 FPS at 1440p to 88.9 FPS at 4K, a 24.3% decrease, which is consistent with the scaling observed at Low settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, all presets are playable, with even Ultra achieving 105 FPS. Since the CPU is the limiting factor at this resolution, players can choose Ultra for maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness, as the 105 FPS average is well above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the High preset delivers 88.9 FPS, which is a good balance between visual quality and performance. Ultra drops to 83.1 FPS, which is still smooth, but the 5.8 FPS gain from High to Ultra is minimal. The Medium preset at 117.5 FPS provides a significant performance boost for players who prefer higher refresh rates.

At 3840x2160, the data shows a clear trade-off. The High preset achieves 65.3 FPS, which is just above the 60 FPS target, while Ultra drops to 61.3 FPS. The Low preset at 114.2 FPS is the only way to get a high refresh rate experience at 4K, but it sacrifices visual quality. For the best experience at 4K, the High preset offers the best balance, as it maintains 60+ FPS while providing most of the visual enhancements.

The Medium preset at 4K (88.9 FPS) is a viable option for players who want a smoother experience without dropping to Low. Given that the difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 4 FPS, the High preset is recommended as the best overall experience, as it provides a stable 60+ FPS with good visual fidelity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). At 1920x1080, the frame rates range from 188.9 FPS at Low to 105 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset achieves 149.4 FPS, and High delivers 109.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 39.5 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 4.8 FPS, showing diminishing returns at the top end.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves 150.2 FPS, Medium hits 117.5 FPS, High reaches 88.9 FPS, and Ultra drops to 83.1 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra shows a 67.1 FPS difference, with the largest single drop occurring between Medium and High (28.6 FPS).

At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 114.2 FPS, Medium hits 88.9 FPS, High reaches 65.3 FPS, and Ultra drops to 61.3 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 52.9 FPS, with the drop from Medium to High (23.6 FPS) being the most significant. The Ultra preset is the only configuration that dips below 65 FPS, making it the most demanding setting in this combination.

The data shows that the combination ranks 246th out of 1,795 tested combinations in this game, placing it in the top 13.7% of all configurations. This indicates a high-performing pairing, with the CPU and GPU working together to deliver playable frame rates across all tested scenarios.