Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 shows a system that can handle the sim, but requires careful settings management to achieve a smooth experience. The benchmark results indicate that this combination sits in the 2912th position out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, yet the frame rates across various resolutions and presets reveal a clear path to playability. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to provide optimal settings, examine the roles of the processor and graphics card, and contextualize the combo’s standing in the broader benchmark hierarchy.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data points to the Medium preset as the most balanced experience for this hardware combination, as it is the only setting tier that provides consistent minimum frame rate data across all three tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers an average of 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS, which offers a solid margin above the 60 FPS threshold for fluid simulation control. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset drops to an average of 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS, which is still playable but shows the first signs of strain on the system. At 3840x2160, the Medium preset averages 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS, indicating that 4K gaming at this preset is only marginally viable for less demanding flight scenarios.

The Low preset offers the highest frame rates, with a 92 FPS average at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K, making it the only setting that keeps the 4K experience above the 50 FPS mark. However, the visual compromise in a flight simulator—where terrain detail and cockpit readability are crucial—makes Low a less desirable choice for most users. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended for primary use, as they push the average FPS below 55 at 1080p and below 45 at 1440p, with the Ultra preset hitting a 30 FPS average at 4K. The data suggests that the Medium preset is the sweet spot, providing a playable frame rate at 1080p and 1440p while maintaining visual fidelity, and it is the only tier where the minimum FPS is recorded, indicating a more stable frame delivery.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus and 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, is the primary bottleneck when resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. The GPU’s base clock of 1365 MHz and boost clock of 1680 MHz, combined with its 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units, define its raw throughput capabilities. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as resolution increases, the frame rate drops proportionally, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. For instance, at the High preset, the average FPS falls from 54 at 1080p to 43 at 1440p (a 20.4% drop) and then to 32 at 4K (a 25.6% drop from 1440p). This indicates that the RTX 2060’s pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are being saturated at higher resolutions.

The GPU’s 6 GB VRAM capacity is a notable concern for Microsoft Flight Simulator at higher settings, as the sim is known for loading extensive terrain and aircraft textures. While the data does not show VRAM capacity directly, the significant FPS drops at 4K (where the High preset only averages 32 FPS) suggest that the GPU is struggling to maintain both geometry and texture data. The RTX 2060’s performance percentile sits at 58 among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals—including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 with a 0% delta, the AMD Radeon 680M with a 0.1% delta, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM with a 0.6% delta—show that it is positioned at the edge of modern gaming relevance. In this sim, the GPU’s role becomes increasingly dominant at 4K, where even the Low preset (55 FPS average) cannot reach the 60 FPS target, underscoring that the RTX 2060 is the limiting factor at that resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F provides a robust foundation for the simulation’s physics and AI calculations, with its 10 cores (comprising performance and efficiency cores) and 16 threads, base clock of 2.50 GHz, and boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The CPU’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache are well-suited for the complex flight models and world simulation logic that Microsoft Flight Simulator runs. The benchmark data shows that the CPU’s performance is not the primary bottleneck at 1080p, where the Low preset achieves 92 FPS, but it does become more relevant as the GPU load decreases. The processor’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604 and single-core score of 3191 indicate strong single-threaded performance, which is crucial for the sim’s main rendering thread.

The CPU’s role is more pronounced when comparing the FPS scaling from Low to Ultra at the same resolution. At 1080p, the FPS drops from 92 (Low) to 51 (Ultra), a 44.6% reduction, which is primarily due to increased GPU load. However, the fact that the 13400F can feed the RTX 2060 adequately at 1080p Low (92 FPS) without creating a CPU bottleneck is demonstrated by the CPU’s percentile rank of 77 among all processors. The CPU’s nearest rivals—the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with a 0% delta, the Intel Core 5 120 with a -0.3% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with a -0.3% delta—show that it is competitively positioned. In this game, the CPU’s 16 threads handle the background simulation tasks, but the data suggests that the GPU becomes the limiting factor before the CPU’s capabilities are fully taxed, particularly at higher resolutions where the RTX 2060’s workload dominates.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of the Intel Core i5-13400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 holds a rank of 2912 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 78.4th percentile of performance (calculated from the rank). This ranking indicates that the system is in the lower-to-middle tier of the database, meaning that a significant portion of tested combos outperform it, but it is far from the bottom. The ranking is a composite measure that considers both the CPU and GPU’s ability to deliver frame rates across all settings and resolutions tested. Given that the GPU’s percentile (58) is significantly lower than the CPU’s percentile (77), it is clear that the RTX 2060 is dragging the combo down relative to what the 13400F could support.

The data indicates that this combo’s performance is heavily gated by the GPU, as evidenced by the fact that at 1080p Ultra, the system only achieves 51 FPS, while at 1080p Low, it reaches 92 FPS. If paired with a stronger GPU, the 13400F would likely push this combo’s rank higher, but as configured, the system’s overall standing reflects the GPU’s limitations. The nearest rival GPU comparisons show that the RTX 2060 is only marginally ahead of the GTX 580 (0% delta) and the Radeon 680M (0.1% delta), which are much older or integrated solutions, further confirming that the graphics card is the weak link. For users seeking a higher rank in this benchmark, the data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield the most significant gains, while the CPU has headroom to support such an upgrade.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling analysis reveals that the system’s frame rate is highly sensitive to pixel count, which is a hallmark of a GPU-bound configuration. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by 20.4% (from 54 to 43) at High settings, by 21.6% (from 92 to 74) at Low settings, by 18.3% (from 71 to 58) at Medium settings, and by 19.6% (from 51 to 41) at Ultra settings. This consistent ~20% reduction across all presets indicates that the RTX 2060’s pixel processing capabilities are being scaled uniformly as the resolution increases. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the FPS drops further: by 25.6% (from 43 to 32) at High, by 25.7% (from 74 to 55) at Low, by 27.6% (from 58 to 42) at Medium, and by 26.8% (from 41 to 30) at Ultra. The slightly larger percentage drop from 1440p to 4K suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s) and VRAM capacity (6 GB) are being taxed more heavily at 4K, leading to diminishing returns.

The scaling pattern demonstrates that the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions above 1080p, as the FPS drops are directly proportional to the increase in pixel count. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions, which is not the case here. The data shows that at 1080p, the system can achieve near-60 FPS on High settings (54 FPS), but at 4K, even Low settings only deliver 55 FPS, indicating that the GPU cannot keep up with the 4K pixel load. The fact that the FPS at 4K Low (55) is nearly identical to the FPS at 1080p High (54) suggests that the GPU is delivering similar work per frame, but the increased resolution forces a settings reduction to maintain comparable performance. This analysis confirms that users should target 1080p or 1440p for optimal frame rates, with 4K reserved for simpler scenes or lower presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for this combo at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset provides the best balance, with an average of 71 FPS, a minimum of 61 FPS, and a maximum of 82 FPS, offering a smooth experience with improved visuals over Low.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where it averages 55 FPS. At Medium settings, the average drops to 42 FPS, and at Ultra, it falls to 30 FPS, making 4K playable only at the lowest preset.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more limiting for this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor, as evidenced by the significant FPS drops when resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, while the CPU’s performance percentile (77) is higher than the GPU’s (58).

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 2912 out of 3714 combos, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, with the GPU being the primary constraint on performance.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only minimum FPS data is recorded at the Medium preset, with a minimum of 61 FPS at 1080p, 49 FPS at 1440p, and 36 FPS at 4K.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU at 1080p Low?

A: No, the CPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p Low, as the system achieves 92 FPS, which is likely near the GPU’s maximum output at that resolution and preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates are as follows: Low settings deliver 92 FPS, Medium settings deliver 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS, High settings deliver 54 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 51 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 61 indicates that it stays above the 60 FPS threshold, providing a smooth experience, while the High and Ultra presets fall below that mark, which may result in noticeable stutter during complex scenes.

At 2560x1440, the average frame rates are: Low settings at 74 FPS, Medium settings at 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS, High settings at 43 FPS, and Ultra settings at 41 FPS. The Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 49 shows that it can dip below 60 FPS, so users may need to adjust expectations for smoother gameplay at this resolution. The gap between High and Ultra is narrow (43 vs 41 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset offers minimal visual benefit for the performance cost at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are: Low settings at 55 FPS, Medium settings at 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS, High settings at 32 FPS, and Ultra settings at 30 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that remains playable, while the Medium preset’s minimum FPS of 36 indicates significant drops that could affect the simulation’s smoothness. The High and Ultra presets are effectively unplayable at 4K, with averages below 35 FPS, confirming that this combo is not suited for high-fidelity 4K flight simulation.