Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of the Intel Core i5-14400F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Microsoft Flight Simulator produces a profoundly constrained experience, landing this specific combo at rank 3665 out of 3714 tested configurations. This places it in the bottom 1.3% of all combos, a position that underscores a severe bottleneck that is almost entirely GPU-bound across every resolution and settings preset. The data reveals a system where the CPU’s substantial processing power is effectively neutralized by a graphics card that was end-of-life before the game’s 2020 release, resulting in frame rates that rarely approach playability.

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

The Intel Core i5-14400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates strong performance, achieving a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a single-core score of 3055, alongside a Geekbench multi-core score of 11268. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 25470 and a percentile ranking of 83 among all CPUs indicate that the chip is well-equipped for demanding computational workloads, including the complex physics and AI calculations that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for. The 20 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory further bolster its capability to handle large datasets.

However, the benchmark results from this specific combo suggest that the CPU’s role is largely academic in this configuration. The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 39, and at 4K Low it drops to 23. While the CPU is clearly able to feed the GPU with data, the frame rates do not scale in a way that suggests CPU limitation. For instance, the difference between 1080p and 1440p at Low settings is a drop from 39 FPS to 31 FPS, and then further to 23 FPS at 4K. This pattern indicates that the graphics card is the primary constraint, as the workload per frame increases with resolution, the GPU’s inability to keep up becomes the dominant factor. The i5-14400F, with its high boost clock and 16 threads, would likely be capable of pushing much higher frame rates if paired with a more powerful GPU, but the GTX 1050 Ti caps the output.

The data implies that the CPU’s 10 cores are not being fully utilized in this scenario. In a flight simulator, which often has a single main thread for rendering and several for background tasks, the i5-14400F’s strong single-core performance (Cinebench R15 single-core score of 307) should be an asset. Yet, the actual frame rates at Ultra settings (22 FPS at 1080p, 17 FPS at 1440p, 13 FPS at 4K) are far below what this CPU could theoretically sustain. The bottleneck is so pronounced that any analysis of CPU scaling is moot; the GPU’s 4 GB of VRAM and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are overwhelmed by the game’s texture and geometry demands, regardless of the CPU’s readiness. The processor sits idle, waiting for the GPU to finish its work, which is a classic sign of a severe imbalance in the system.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

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

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 39 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only point where the system approaches a playable level, and it is still below the 40 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for a smooth experience.

Q: How does the i5-14400F's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: In the CPU benchmark data, the Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (score 32233), 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900 (score 32226), and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800H (score 32121). It is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (score 32354). This shows the CPU is competitive with its peers, but that performance is not reflected in the game's FPS due to the GPU limit.

Q: Is the GTX 1050 Ti's performance level close to any other GPUs in the database?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4193. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M330, which scores 4170, a delta of 0.6%. It is also 1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (score 4151) and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (score 4268). These are all very low-end parts, confirming the GPU's position in the bottom quartile (25th percentile) of all GPUs.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 39 FPS on Low settings to 22 FPS on Ultra settings. This represents a 17 FPS reduction, or approximately a 44% decrease in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the combo achieve a stable 30 FPS at any resolution?

A: The data shows that the combo achieves exactly 30 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, with a recorded minimum of 26 FPS and maximum of 35 FPS. While the average hits 30, the minimum dips below, indicating some instability. At 1440p Medium, the average is 24 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 18 FPS, so 1080p Medium is the only point where the average reaches the 30 FPS mark.

Q: How does the combo rank relative to all other tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 3665 out of 3714 total combos in the database for this game. This places it in the bottom 1.3% of all tested systems, highlighting that nearly every other combination of CPU and GPU delivers higher frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

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

The resolution scaling pattern is remarkably consistent across all settings presets, and it tells a clear story about the system's bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 39 at 1920x1080, to 31 at 2560x1440, and finally to 23 at 3840x2160. This is a drop of 8 FPS (approximately 21%) when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and a further drop of 8 FPS (approximately 26%) when moving from 1440p to 4K. The linear nature of this decline suggests that the GPU is being asked to do progressively more work per pixel, and its fixed compute resources (768 shading units) and memory bandwidth (112.1 GB/s) are simply insufficient.

The scaling is similar at Medium settings: 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The drops are 6 FPS and 6 FPS, respectively. At High settings, the pattern continues with 23 FPS at 1080p, 18 FPS at 1440p, and 14 FPS at 4K. Even at Ultra, where the frame rates are already abysmal, the scaling holds: 22 FPS, 17 FPS, and 13 FPS. The consistency of these drops, roughly 5-8 FPS per step up in resolution, is a hallmark of GPU-bound performance. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would be more similar across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not increase as significantly with resolution as the GPU's does.

This data strongly implies that the GTX 1050 Ti is the sole limiting component. The GPU's 4 GB of VRAM is likely being saturated at 1080p with higher settings, and at 1440p and 4K, the texture data exceeds the VRAM capacity, forcing the system to use slower system memory, which further cripples performance. The fact that the frame rates are all in the teens and low twenties at 4K, regardless of settings, suggests that the GPU has hit a hard wall in terms of raw pixel throughput. The CPU, meanwhile, has more than enough headroom to process the game's simulation logic, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's inability to render frames at an acceptable rate. The data shows a system where the GPU is working at 100% capacity while the CPU is likely idle, waiting for the next frame to be ready.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The absolute position of this combo in the global ranking is a stark indicator of its performance ceiling. With a rank of 3665 out of 3714 combos, this configuration sits in the bottom 1.3% of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is not a case of being slightly below average; it is a case of being at the very tail end of the performance distribution. The data implies that this pairing is fundamentally mismatched for this specific game.

The rank is a composite measure that takes into account performance across all settings and resolutions. Given that the best average FPS is 39 at 1080p Low, it is easy to see why the rank is so low. Most other combos, even those with modest CPUs, likely have GPUs that can at least achieve playable frame rates at 1080p. The GTX 1050 Ti's 25th percentile ranking among all GPUs underscores that it is a bottom-tier part historically, and when paired with a high-end CPU like the i5-14400F (83rd percentile), the result is a system where the investment in the CPU is completely wasted in this game. The combo rank reflects the reality that the GPU holds back the entire system, and the CPU's superior benchmark scores (e.g., 21645 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) do not translate into better in-game performance.

Compared to other combos, this one is likely to be outperformed by any system with a more modern entry-level GPU, even if paired with a weaker CPU. The data suggests that the bottleneck is so severe that even a slight GPU upgrade would yield a massive improvement in rank, while upgrading the CPU would provide negligible gains. The rank serves as a warning against pairing a high-performance processor with a legacy low-end graphics card for this simulation title.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance envelope, and it is uniformly poor. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 39 FPS, Medium settings yield an average of 30 FPS (with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35), High settings yield an average of 23 FPS, and Ultra settings yield an average of 22 FPS. The variation between High and Ultra is minimal, suggesting that the GPU is already saturated at High, and the extra detail in Ultra does not significantly impact the frame rate because the GPU is already the bottleneck.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop across the board. Low settings produce an average of 31 FPS, Medium settings produce an average of 24 FPS (with a minimum of 21 and a maximum of 28), High settings produce an average of 18 FPS, and Ultra settings produce an average of 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 14 FPS, which is a larger absolute difference than at 1080p, but the relative performance is still constrained by the GPU's limits.

At 3840x2160, the results are borderline unplayable. Low settings average 23 FPS, Medium settings average 18 FPS (with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 21), High settings average 14 FPS, and Ultra settings average 13 FPS. The frame rates at 4K are consistently below 24 FPS, which is the threshold for standard video, and far below the 60 FPS target for a smooth gaming experience. The minimum FPS data, where available, shows that the system can dip even lower, with 15 FPS at 4K Medium being the lowest recorded minimum. This data paints a picture of a system that is overwhelmed at every resolution above 1080p, and only marginally functional at 1080p on the lowest settings.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Given the measured data, the only viable settings preset for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which provides an average of 39 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate, though it still falls short of the 60 FPS ideal. The data shows that moving from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 9 FPS (from 39 to 30), which is a significant drop for what might be a marginal visual improvement. The Medium preset does offer a minimum FPS of 26, which is slightly better than the unknown minimums for Low, but the average is much lower.

At 1440p, even Low settings only achieve an average of 31 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS minimum for a playable experience for many users. The data suggests that using a higher resolution is not worthwhile, as the frame rate penalty is severe. For instance, moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low reduces the average FPS by 8, and moving to 4K Low reduces it by a further 8. The visual fidelity gained by increasing resolution cannot compensate for the loss in smoothness.

The recommendation from the measured rows is clear: users must prioritize resolution and settings to get the most out of this hardware. The best experience, if one can call it that, is at 1080p Low. If a user insists on higher quality, they must accept sub-30 FPS performance. The data indicates that the Ultra preset is a waste of resources, as it only yields 22 FPS at 1080p, which is only 1 FPS less than High, but the visual difference is likely negligible at such low frame rates. The most sensible approach is to stick with 1080p Low, as it is the only way to achieve a frame rate that is close to playable, and to avoid higher resolutions entirely.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is unequivocally the weak link in this system. Its specifications, including 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.1 GB/s bandwidth, are woefully inadequate for a modern flight simulator. The GPU is based on the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process, and features 768 shading units. Its base clock is 1291 MHz, with a boost clock of 1392 MHz. The GPU's synthetic performance scores are low, with a Passmark G3D score of 6340 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. Its percentile ranking among all GPUs is 25, meaning it is in the bottom quarter of all graphics cards.

The GPU's role in the measured FPS is the primary determinant. The 4 GB VRAM is a critical limitation. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for high-resolution textures and complex scenery, which can easily exceed 4 GB of VRAM at 1080p with high settings. When the VRAM is full, the system must swap textures in and out of system memory, which causes stuttering and frame rate drops. This is likely why the frame rates are so low even at 1080p Medium (30 FPS). The GPU's memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s is also insufficient for the game's data streaming requirements, especially at higher resolutions.

The GPU's boost clock of 1392 MHz, while respectable for its class, cannot overcome the fundamental lack of compute power and memory capacity. The FP32 performance of 2.138 TFLOPS is minuscule by modern standards, and the pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s and texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s are similarly low. The data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution. The CPU is not the issue; the i5-14400F is a powerful processor. The GPU's 25th percentile rank and its proximity to rivals like the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (which scores 4170) in synthetic benchmarks confirm that this is a legacy entry-level part. The measured FPS data, with its consistent drop as resolution increases, is a direct result of the GTX 1050 Ti's inability to process the game's graphics workload, regardless of the CPU's readiness.