Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this Intel Core i5-13400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti combination reveals a GPU-bound scenario at nearly every resolution and settings preset. Moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 40.7 FPS to 22.4 FPS, a drop of 18.3 FPS or roughly 45%. This steep decline as pixel count rises is the signature of a graphics card operating at its limits; the GTX 1050 Ti simply cannot sustain the fill-rate demands of 4K flight simulation.

The picture is even more telling at High settings. At 1920x1080 the combo manages 21.0 FPS, but at 2560x1440 that slips to 19.9 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it collapses to 15.9 FPS. The incremental loss from 1080p to 1440p is just 1.1 FPS, while the jump from 1440p to 4K costs another 4.0 FPS. This non-linear scaling pattern indicates that at High preset, the GPU is already so saturated at 1080p that adding resolution only marginally worsens an already poor experience. The data suggests the limiting component here is unambiguously the graphics processor; the CPU's role is secondary, as even the lowest resolution tested fails to produce a frame rate that would indicate any CPU bottleneck.

Ultra settings reinforce this conclusion. From 1920x1080 (24.1 FPS) to 2560x1440 (18.8 FPS) to 3840x2160 (15.5 FPS), the declines are steady but modest in absolute terms. A 4K Ultra run produces just 15.5 FPS, which is effectively a slideshow for a flight simulator where smooth visual scanning of the horizon is essential. The resolution scaling data shows that this combo is best treated as a 1080p-oriented configuration, and even there, only Low settings approach playability.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F brings substantial processing headroom to this pairing, but the benchmark results indicate it is rarely the constraint. With 10 cores, 16 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, this Raptor Lake desktop chip posts strong synthetic scores: a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 21279 and a single-core score of 3004. Its Passmark multithread score of 25032 places it in the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 25236 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-13620H.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the i5-13400F's single-core performance (Passmark single-thread score of 3634, Geekbench single-core of 2301) should theoretically allow for solid frame pacing. However, the measured FPS at 1080p Low — 40.7 FPS — falls far short of what this CPU could deliver if paired with a stronger GPU. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 7314 and max-thread score of 7307 indicate the CPU can flex across many threads, but the game's rendering workload is being choked by the GPU's 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The conclusion from the data is that the CPU role in this combo is supportive, not determinative. At no resolution or settings preset does the frame rate exceed 41 FPS, which means the GTX 1050 Ti is always the first wall hit. The CPU's 20 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4/DDR5) are more than adequate for this game's asset streaming, but the GPU's 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 128-bit bus limit how much scenery data can be processed per frame.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but not playably. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 15.5 (Ultra) to 22.4 (Low). Even at Low settings, 22.4 FPS is below the threshold for a smooth flight experience.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 as the only viable resolution. At 1080p Low the combo achieves 40.7 FPS, and at Medium it drops to 29.8 FPS. Both 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 produce averages below 32 FPS in all settings.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in this game context?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 5316, which is virtually identical to the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta) and 0.4% ahead of the GeForce 940M (5297). The AMD Radeon R7 240 is 0.7% behind. This places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low relative performance.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F holding back the GTX 1050 Ti?

A: No. The CPU's percentile rank is 82, and its nearest rival (Intel Core i7-13620H) scores nearly identically (25201 vs 25236, 0.1% delta). The frame rates in this game are far below what the CPU can support, so the GPU is the clear limiting factor.

Q: What settings preset gives the highest FPS at 1080p?

A: Low settings at 1920x1080 yields 40.7 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all configurations. Medium produces 29.8 FPS, High drops to 21.0 FPS, and Ultra sits at 24.1 FPS.

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

A: It ranks 1761 out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 2% of all configurations in the database.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1761 out of 1795 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 2% of all configurations benchmarked for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a decisive verdict: this pairing is among the weakest possible for this game. The GPU's 30th percentile standing among all GPUs (average score 5316, just 0.4% above the GeForce 940M) drags the entire system down, despite the CPU's strong 82nd percentile rank.

The delta between CPU and GPU potential is stark. The i5-13400F's average benchmark score of 25236 is 0.5% above the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and 0.5% below the AMD EPYC 9474F, showing it belongs in the upper-middle tier of processors. But the GTX 1050 Ti's nearest rivals are the GeForce 930A (0% delta), GeForce 940M (0.4% ahead), and Radeon R7 240 (0.7% behind) — all low-end mobile or entry-level desktop parts. This imbalance means the combo's rank is effectively determined by the GPU alone.

In practical terms, this rank means that almost any other GPU pairing with the i5-13400F would yield better results. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, the combo cannot exceed 40.7 FPS, which is a marginal experience for a flight simulator that benefits from high frame rates to render smooth cloud movement and terrain flybys. The rank reflects a fundamental mismatch: a capable 10-core CPU shackled to a 2016-era GPU with 4 GB of VRAM.

Settings Recommendations

Based solely on the measured FPS rows, the only settings preset that approaches a playable experience is Low at 1920x1080, which delivers 40.7 FPS. This is the clear recommendation for any user who prioritizes smoothness over visual fidelity. Medium at 1080p (29.8 FPS) is a borderline option if the user can tolerate sub-30 FPS in a simulator where occasional stutters are already common.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 31.3 FPS, which is technically above 30 FPS but still choppy. High and Ultra presets at 1440p (19.9 and 18.8 FPS respectively) are not recommended. At 3840x2160, all settings presets yield averages between 15.5 and 22.4 FPS, making 4K unusable regardless of preset choice.

The data suggests a stair-step approach: if the user must play at 1080p, choose Low for best FPS, Medium for a visual compromise, and avoid High/Ultra (21.0 and 24.1 FPS) as they offer no benefit over Medium in terms of smoothness. At higher resolutions, Low is the only defensible choice, and even then, the experience will be suboptimal. The measured rows indicate that no settings preset at any resolution achieves a consistent 60 FPS, so expectations must be set accordingly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 22.4 FPS, Medium produces 21.1 FPS, High produces 15.9 FPS, and Ultra produces 15.5 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 6.9 FPS, showing that even dropping every setting to minimum only recovers a small fraction of playability.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 31.3 FPS, Medium delivers 26.9 FPS, High delivers 19.9 FPS, and Ultra delivers 18.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 12.5 FPS, which is slightly larger than at 4K, indicating that the GPU has a bit more headroom at this resolution to benefit from reduced settings.

At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 40.7 FPS, Medium achieves 29.8 FPS, High achieves 21.0 FPS, and Ultra achieves 24.1 FPS. Notably, Ultra at 1080p (24.1 FPS) is slightly higher than High (21.0 FPS), which is an anomaly in the data but still far from smooth. The 1080p Low result is the only measured configuration above 40 FPS in the entire dataset.

Across all resolutions, the delta between Low and Ultra settings ranges from a low of 6.9 FPS (at 4K) to a high of 16.6 FPS (at 1080p). This shows that settings adjustments have diminishing returns as resolution increases, because the GPU is already fully occupied with pixel shading. The maximum FPS recorded anywhere in the dataset is 40.7 (1080p Low), and the minimum is 15.5 (4K Ultra).

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the decisive component in this combo, and the data shows it is severely underpowered for Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and a 128-bit memory bus feeding 4 GB of GDDR5 at 112.1 GB/s, this Pascal-generation GPU (14 nm, GP107 chip) offers just 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its boost clock of 1392 MHz and base of 1291 MHz are modest by modern standards.

The GPU's average benchmark score is 5316, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0% delta), and it is 0.4% ahead of the GeForce 940M and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240. These are all entry-level parts from previous generations, underscoring how far behind the GTX 1050 Ti sits in the current landscape. Its Passmark G3D score of 6340 and DirectX 12 score of 26 (out of a possible much higher number) confirm its low standing.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the GPU's 4 GB VRAM is a critical weakness. The game streams vast scenery tiles, and at 4K Ultra the measured 15.5 FPS suggests the card is both compute-bound and memory-bandwidth-limited. The 112.1 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for the texture-heavy workloads of flight simulation, where the camera moves through dense urban and terrain environments. The GPU's 30th percentile rank, combined with the combo's 1761st rank out of 1795, indicates that any upgrade path for this system must start with the graphics card, not the CPU. The i5-13400F has ample headroom to drive a significantly faster GPU, but the GTX 1050 Ti caps this system's performance at roughly 41 FPS maximum, even at the lowest settings and resolution tested.