Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the combo rank of the Intel Core i5-13400F with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 489th out of 1795 tested combos in the database for this game, placing it in the upper third of all tested configurations.

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

A: The Core i5-13400F scores 25236 on average, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D. It also trails the AMD EPYC 9474F and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 by 0.5%.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT sits in the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 39647.

Q: What is the GPU's closest rival in synthetic performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575 is essentially tied, with a score of 39703 and a delta of -0.1%. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is 0.2% behind, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 trail by 0.5% and 0.6% respectively.

Q: What memory configuration does the GPU use?

A: The GPU features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 2518 MHz, translating to 20.1 Gbps effective.

Q: What is the CPU's boost clock and how many cores does it have?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. It has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is a substantial contributor to this combo's performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for streaming the high-resolution terrain and aircraft textures this simulation demands. The GPU's base clock of 1660 MHz and boost clock of 2970 MHz, with a game clock of 2400 MHz, allow it to handle the rendering load across varying quality presets.

The GPU's architecture is RDNA 4.0 on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die. It has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s indicate strong fill-rate capabilities. The FP32 performance of 48.66 TFLOPS positions it well for the shader-heavy workloads in flight simulation, where complex lighting and shadow calculations are common.

In this game, the GPU's role becomes more pronounced as resolution increases. At 1080p, the CPU can feed frames quickly, but at 4K, the GPU's raw throughput becomes the limiting factor. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the combo delivers 53.6 FPS, while at 1080p Low it reaches 161 FPS. This spread demonstrates that the RX 9070 XT has ample headroom at lower resolutions but is pushed hard at 4K with maximum settings.

The GPU's 64 RT cores support DirectX 12 Ultimate, which matters for the latest graphical features in the simulation. The 16 GB frame buffer is particularly valuable at 4K Ultra, where texture-heavy scenes can exceed 8 GB of usage. The memory bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s ensures that texture streaming does not become a bottleneck, even with the highest-detail scenery packs.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT combination ranks 489th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the top 27% of all configurations tested, which is a strong result for a mid-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 82 among all CPUs suggests it is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 25236 is within 0.5% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Intel Core i7-13620H. The GPU's percentile ranking is also 82, with an average score of 39647, showing that both components are well-matched in their respective tiers.

This combo's rank of 489 suggests that there are 488 faster configurations, likely featuring higher-end CPUs or GPUs. However, given that this ranks above 1306 other combos, it represents a solidly above-average pairing for this simulation. The data indicates that the combo is balanced, with neither component dramatically outperforming the other in synthetic tests relative to their peers.

The rank also reflects the game's demanding nature. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for being CPU-intensive at lower resolutions and GPU-intensive at higher resolutions. This combo handles both aspects reasonably well, as evidenced by the measured FPS across resolutions and settings. The rank of 489 out of 1795 means that users can expect a smooth experience at most settings, with only the most extreme 4K Ultra configurations pushing the combo to its limits.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four quality settings. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers strong results: 161 FPS on Low, 127.8 FPS on Medium, 95.9 FPS on High, and 89.1 FPS on Ultra. This indicates that at 1080p, the combo is more than capable of driving high refresh rate displays, even at Ultra settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the FPS drops are noticeable but still respectable. Low settings produce 131.3 FPS, Medium delivers 100.5 FPS, High achieves 75.6 FPS, and Ultra falls to 73 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is more pronounced at lower settings: a 18.5% decrease on Low, but only a 18.9% decrease on Ultra. This suggests that the GPU is beginning to become more of a factor at 1440p, but the combo still maintains playable framerates across all settings.

At 3840x2160, the combo starts to show its limits. Low settings produce 92.8 FPS, Medium achieves 76.6 FPS, High delivers 59 FPS, and Ultra drops to 53.6 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is below the 60 FPS threshold that many users consider the minimum for a smooth experience. However, the 4K Low result of 92.8 FPS shows that the combo can handle 4K if the user is willing to reduce quality settings.

The data reveals that the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can maintain high framerates even at Ultra settings. At 4K, users will need to balance quality and performance, with High settings delivering near-60 FPS and Ultra falling short of that mark.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals important insights about the limiting component in this combo. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 161 at 1080p to 131.3 at 1440p, then to 92.8 at 4K. This represents a 42.4% decrease from 1080p to 4K, indicating that the GPU is becoming more stressed as resolution increases, but the CPU still has enough headroom to feed it.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is different: 89.1 FPS at 1080p, 73 FPS at 1440p, and 53.6 FPS at 4K. This is a 39.8% decrease from 1080p to 4K, which is slightly less than the Low setting drop. This counterintuitive result suggests that at Ultra settings, the CPU is already near its limit at 1080p, preventing the GPU from being fully utilized. As resolution increases, the GPU workload grows, but the CPU bottleneck remains relatively constant.

The medium settings show the most linear scaling: 127.8 at 1080p, 100.5 at 1440p, and 76.6 at 4K, representing a 40.1% drop from 1080p to 4K. This suggests a more balanced load between CPU and GPU at this setting.

The data indicates that the limiting component shifts depending on resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, the CPU is likely the bottleneck, as the GPU can render frames faster than the CPU can prepare them. At 4K Ultra, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, as evidenced by the 53.6 FPS result that is close to the 60 FPS target. The fact that the 4K Ultra result is only 39.8% lower than 1080p Ultra, while the 4K Low result is 42.4% lower than 1080p Low, suggests that the GPU's workload scaling is not perfectly linear, and the CPU's role in frame preparation becomes relatively more important at higher settings.