Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this Intel Core i5-14400F and AMD Radeon RX 6600 combination show a clear pattern across all three resolutions: the step from Low to Medium costs roughly 20 FPS, the step from Medium to High costs another 14–16 FPS, and the step from High to Ultra costs only 3–4 FPS. That last step is remarkably small, which suggests the Ultra preset is pushing against a hard performance ceiling rather than offering a meaningful visual upgrade per frame.

At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 72 FPS average with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. This is the only preset at any resolution where the minimum frame rate stays above 60 FPS. The Low preset reaches 92 FPS, which is smooth, but the jump from Low to Medium costs 20 FPS while the jump from Medium to High costs 18 FPS. The data indicates that Medium at 1080p provides the best balance of smoothness and visual fidelity, since the 72 FPS average sits comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold and the 61 FPS minimum ensures no noticeable stutter in typical flight scenarios.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset drops to 58 FPS average with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS. The Low preset hits 74 FPS, which is the only 1440p setting that clears 60 FPS on average. The High preset falls to 43 FPS, and Ultra to 41 FPS. For 1440p, the recommendation is Low if frame rate consistency is the priority, since 74 FPS average provides headroom for the demanding scenery overflights that this simulator is known for. Medium at 1440p is playable but the 49 FPS minimum shows the combo can dip below smooth territory in dense areas.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The Low preset achieves 55 FPS, Medium 43 FPS, High 32 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, which strongly suggests that at 4K the GPU is fully saturated and the extra visual features of Ultra add negligible cost. The best experience at 4K is Low, since 55 FPS is close to the 60 FPS target and the next step down to Medium costs 12 FPS for a modest quality gain.

Across all resolutions, the measured data shows that Medium at 1080p is the single best experience for this combo, offering a 72 FPS average and a 61 FPS minimum. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, High at 1080p at 54 FPS is acceptable, but Ultra at any resolution provides less than a 4 FPS improvement over High, making it the least efficient preset in the dataset.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 92, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. The next highest is 74 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low, then 72 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium.

Q: Can this combo maintain 60 FPS at 2560x1440?

A: Only with the Low preset, which averages 74 FPS. Medium at 1440p averages 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 FPS, so it cannot consistently hold 60 FPS. High and Ultra average 43 FPS and 41 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High in terms of performance cost?

A: The difference is minimal. At 1080p, Ultra averages 51 FPS versus 54 FPS for High, a 3 FPS drop. At 1440p, Ultra averages 41 FPS versus 43 FPS for High, a 2 FPS drop. At 4K, Ultra averages 31 FPS versus 32 FPS for High, a 1 FPS drop.

Q: Is 4K playable on this hardware for this game?

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where the average is 55 FPS. Medium at 4K drops to 43 FPS, High to 32 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. The data shows that 4K requires significant settings compromises for smooth gameplay.

Q: What is the minimum frame rate recorded in the dataset?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 36, occurring at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The 1440p Medium preset has a minimum of 49 FPS, and 1080p Medium has a minimum of 61 FPS.

Q: Does the combo rank higher for this game compared to other tested combinations?

A: The combo rank in game is 2870 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower portion of the distribution. This indicates that for Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, many other CPU-GPU pairings deliver better performance.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but the rate of decline reveals important information about which component is the bottleneck. At Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 72 at 1080p, to 58 at 1440p, to 43 at 4K. That is a 19.4% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 25.9% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 40.3%.

The Low preset shows a similar pattern: 92 FPS at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 19.6% and 25.7% respectively. High settings go from 54 FPS at 1080p, to 43 FPS at 1440p, to 32 FPS at 4K, with drops of 20.4% and 25.6%. Ultra settings follow the same trend: 51 to 41 to 31 FPS, with drops of 19.6% and 24.4%.

The consistent ~20% drop from 1080p to 1440p and ~25% drop from 1440p to 4K across all four settings presets indicates that the scaling is dominated by pixel count rather than by settings-specific effects. The Radeon RX 6600 has an 8 GB GDDR6 memory pool and a 128-bit memory bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. As resolution increases, the memory bandwidth requirement grows proportionally with pixel count, and the consistent FPS drops suggest the GPU's memory subsystem is the primary limiting factor.

The fact that Ultra settings produce nearly identical FPS to High settings at every resolution (within 1–3 FPS) reinforces this interpretation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between resolutions, since CPU workload does not scale with resolution in the same way. The data shows that the RX 6600 is the limiting component at all resolutions, with the CPU providing sufficient headroom even at 1080p Low where the 92 FPS average still leaves room for GPU-bound performance scaling.

How This Combo Ranks

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this Intel Core i5-14400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 holds a rank of 2870 out of 3714 tested combinations. This puts it in the bottom 22.7% of all tested combos for this specific game. The percentile ranking for the CPU alone is 83, meaning the i5-14400F outperforms 83% of all CPUs in general benchmark averages. The GPU alone ranks at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs. Yet the combined score in this game lands well below what those individual percentiles might suggest.

The discrepancy between the CPU's strong 83rd percentile ranking and the combo's low in-game rank points to the GPU being the limiting factor in this pairing. The RX 6600's average benchmark score of 19036 places it at the 63rd percentile, which is respectable for general workloads but insufficient for the demanding rendering requirements of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The game's heavy reliance on detailed terrain rendering and complex lighting models means that the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are stretched thin.

Among the CPU's nearest rivals, the i5-14400F scores 32279 on average, which is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233) and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226). It sits 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354) and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800H (32121). These are all extremely close scores, confirming that the CPU is performing as expected for its class. The GPU's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, 0% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, -0.1%), NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089, -0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18954, 0.4%). Again, the RX 6600 is squarely in the middle of its performance class.

The bottom line from the ranking data is that this combo is adequate for 1080p gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator but struggles at higher resolutions. The 2870 rank out of 3714 combos means that over 75% of tested combinations deliver better performance in this game, which is a direct consequence of the GPU's mid-range positioning relative to the game's high requirements.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor from the Core 14th Gen series, built on Intel's Raptor Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily to handle game logic, physics calculations, and terrain streaming. The game is known for its heavy single-threaded performance demands, and the i5-14400F delivers strong single-core results in synthetic benchmarks. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 3055, and Geekbench single-core is 2058. These scores place it well above average, and the 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms its strength in this area.

The multicore performance is equally solid, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21645 and a Geekbench multicore score of 11268. The Passmark multithread score of 25470 further demonstrates that the 10 cores and 16 threads are well-utilized in parallel workloads. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can leverage multiple threads for terrain loading and AI traffic, this multicore capability ensures that the CPU does not become a bottleneck.

The measured FPS data supports this conclusion. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 92 FPS, which is well above the typical 60 FPS target. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect to see the FPS plateau at a similar level regardless of resolution. Instead, the FPS drops consistently as resolution increases, indicating that the CPU has headroom to spare. The 4.70 GHz boost clock is particularly relevant for this game, as flight simulators often have sections of code that are latency-sensitive and benefit from high single-thread clock speeds.

The CPU's 20 MB of shared L3 cache is another factor that helps in this game. Microsoft Flight Simulator streams large amounts of terrain data, and a larger cache reduces the frequency of memory accesses, allowing the CPU to feed the GPU more efficiently. The dual-channel memory support (both DDR4 and DDR5) provides flexibility, though the game's performance is more dependent on GPU memory bandwidth than on system memory bandwidth.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The dataset provides 12 measured FPS rows, covering three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 92 FPS, Medium averages 72 FPS with a minimum of 61 and maximum of 82, High averages 54 FPS, and Ultra averages 51 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 20 FPS, from Medium to High is 18 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 3 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 74 FPS, Medium averages 58 FPS with a minimum of 49 and maximum of 66, High averages 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 41 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 16 FPS, from Medium to High is 15 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 2 FPS. The minimum FPS of 49 at Medium 1440p indicates that the combo can dip below 50 FPS in demanding scenes, which may be noticeable during busy airport approaches or dense urban overflights.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 55 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 36 and maximum of 49, High averages 32 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 12 FPS, from Medium to High is 11 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 1 FPS. The 36 FPS minimum at 4K Medium is the lowest recorded value in the entire dataset, indicating that 4K gaming is only viable at Low settings for this combo.

Comparing the same settings across resolutions, the pattern is consistent. Low settings go from 92 FPS at 1080p to 74 FPS at 1440p to 55 FPS at 4K. Medium goes from 72 to 58 to 43. High goes from 54 to 43 to 32. Ultra goes from 51 to 41 to 31. The High and Ultra presets at 4K are nearly indistinguishable, with only 1 FPS separating them, which suggests that the GPU is running out of processing capacity before the Ultra preset's extra features can have an impact.

The data also shows that the Medium preset is the only one with min/max FPS recorded across all three resolutions. This is likely because the test harness captures frame time variance more thoroughly at Medium settings. The min/max data reveals that the frame pacing is relatively stable, with the 1080p Medium range spanning 61 to 82 FPS (a 21 FPS spread), the 1440p Medium range spanning 49 to 66 FPS (a 17 FPS spread), and the 4K Medium range spanning 36 to 49 FPS (a 13 FPS spread). The narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes more consistently saturated, reducing frame time spikes.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process with 11,060 million transistors. It features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, along with 28 ray tracing cores. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 1626 MHz, the boost clock is 2491 MHz, and the game clock is 2044 MHz. Memory operates at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is responsible for rendering the highly detailed terrain, weather effects, and aircraft models. The game is known for being GPU-intensive, particularly at higher resolutions and settings. The measured FPS data shows that the RX 6600 is the primary bottleneck in this combo, as evidenced by the consistent FPS drops with increasing resolution and the negligible difference between High and Ultra settings.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical constraint. At 4K resolution, the frame buffer requirements can exceed 8 GB when texture quality is set to High or Ultra, forcing the GPU to use system memory over PCIe. This explains why the 4K High and Ultra presets both hover around 31–32 FPS, essentially hitting a memory bandwidth wall. The 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is also modest by modern standards, and the 128-bit bus limits the rate at which texture data can be streamed to the rendering pipeline.

The GPU's benchmark scores provide context for its performance. The Passmark G3D score is 15096, and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1492. The Geekbench Vulkan score is 67623, and OpenCL is 28850. The DirectX 12 Passmark score of 51 is notably lower than the DirectX 11 score of 152, suggesting that the GPU's DX12 path may not be fully optimized, which could impact a DX12 title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The RX 6600's 63rd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the mid-range segment. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (0% delta), RTX 4050 Mobile (-0.1%), Tesla K20m (-0.3%), and RTX 2000 Ada Generation (0.4%). These are all older or lower-tier GPUs, confirming that the RX 6600 is not a high-performance part by current standards. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this mid-range positioning translates to playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with reduced settings, but not at 4K beyond Low quality. The 4K Low average of 55 FPS is the only 4K setting that approaches smoothness, and even that is below the 60 FPS threshold.