Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this pairing of an Intel Core i5-14400F with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER lands in the lower quartile of tested configurations. The data shows a system that is fundamentally GPU-limited at higher resolutions but can deliver a playable experience if settings are managed carefully. The GTX 1660 SUPER, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, is the primary constraint here, while the 10-core Raptor Lake CPU has ample headroom for this simulator's workload.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is typical for a GPU-bound scenario. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 78.5 FPS, but this drops to 59.7 FPS at 1440p and further to 47.2 FPS at 4K. That represents a 24% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This scaling pattern is almost purely a function of the GPU's pixel throughput; the GTX 1660 SUPER's 85.68 GPixel/s pixel rate and 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply overwhelmed as the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K.

Looking at the High preset, the trend continues but with lower absolute numbers. The 1080p High average of 42.8 FPS falls to 36.2 FPS at 1440p (a 15% drop) and then to 23.6 FPS at 4K (a 45% drop from 1080p). The diminishing returns between 1440p and 4K suggest that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling, likely related to memory bandwidth. With a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s and only 6 GB of VRAM, the card is probably spilling over into system memory at 4K, which would explain why the Ultra preset at 4K manages only 22.6 FPS.

The most telling comparison is the Low preset scaling. At 1080p Low, the system hits 78.5 FPS, which is close to the 1440p Low result of 59.7 FPS. This indicates that even at Low settings, the CPU is not the limiting factor; if it were, the FPS would stay flat across resolutions. Instead, the consistent decline across all settings at higher resolutions points directly to the GTX 1660 SUPER as the bottleneck. The 4K Low result of 47.2 FPS versus the 1080p Low result of 78.5 FPS shows that the GPU loses roughly 40% of its performance just from the resolution increase, regardless of how light the rendering load is.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth experience at 1080p, the Medium preset is the sweet spot. The measured 60.2 FPS average is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for most displays, and it is a significant 41% improvement over the High preset's 42.8 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs only 18.3 FPS (from 78.5 to 60.2), but the visual fidelity gain in a flight simulator—where cockpit instruments and terrain detail matter—is substantial. Pushing to High or Ultra at 1080p yields 42.8 and 43.4 FPS respectively, which are nearly identical and suggest that the setting change is not worth the performance hit.

At 1440p, the situation tightens. The Low preset delivers 59.7 FPS, which is playable but visually sparse. The Medium preset drops to 48 FPS, which is acceptable for a simulator where frame pacing matters less than in a fast-paced shooter. High and Ultra at 1440p are both in the mid-30s (36.2 and 36.5 FPS), which is marginal. The recommendation is to stick with Medium at 1440p; the 12.7 FPS difference between Medium and High is not worth the detail increase, given that both are below 60 FPS.

4K is not a realistic target for this combo. Even the Low preset at 4K averages only 47.2 FPS, and the Medium preset drops to 32.5 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K is effectively unplayable at 22.6 FPS. If a user must run 4K, the Low preset is the only option that stays above 30 FPS, but the visual compromise is severe. The data suggests that 1080p Medium or 1440p Low are the practical limits for this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator, depending on the user's preference for resolution versus visual quality.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The measured data shows 1080p as the only resolution where the system consistently exceeds 60 FPS, and that is only on the Low (78.5 FPS) and Medium (60.2 FPS) presets. At 1440p, the best result is 59.7 FPS on Low, which is nearly identical to 1080p Medium.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the primary limiter. Resolution scaling shows a consistent FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck. The Intel Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads with a 4.70 GHz boost clock, and its benchmark scores (21914 in Cinebench R23 multicore) place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, suggesting it is not the constraint.

Q: Can this system run the Ultra preset at any resolution?

A: No. The Ultra preset yields 43.4 FPS at 1080p, 36.5 FPS at 1440p, and 22.6 FPS at 4K. None of these are smooth enough for a consistent experience, with the 4K result being particularly poor.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its closest rivals in terms of raw GPU score?

A: The GTX 1660 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 14286, which places it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, scores 14314, a delta of -0.2%, meaning the GTX 1660 SUPER is essentially tied with integrated graphics in synthetic tests, though its dedicated memory and drivers help in real games.

Q: Is the 6 GB VRAM a problem for this game?

A: The data suggests it is a limiting factor at 4K. The steep drop between 1440p High (36.2 FPS) and 4K High (23.6 FPS) is 35%, which is larger than the proportional increase in pixel count, indicating memory pressure. At 1080p, the VRAM appears sufficient, as the Low preset achieves 78.5 FPS.

Q: What FPS can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average is 42.8 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS target but still playable for a flight simulator, which is less sensitive to frame rate fluctuations than action games. The High preset at 1080p offers a 10% improvement over Ultra (43.4 FPS), suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings was tested. The Low preset delivers 78.5 FPS, Medium drops to 60.2 FPS, and High and Ultra are nearly identical at 42.8 and 43.4 FPS respectively. The gap between Medium and High is 17.4 FPS, which is the largest single-step drop in the entire 1080p dataset. This indicates that the High preset introduces a significant rendering cost, likely from shadows and reflections, that the GTX 1660 SUPER struggles to handle.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers compress. Low still manages 59.7 FPS, which is a 24% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium falls to 48 FPS, a 20% reduction from its 1080p counterpart. High and Ultra are 36.2 and 36.5 FPS, respectively, showing that the Ultra preset at 1440p is actually 0.3 FPS faster than High—a negligible difference that falls within measurement noise. This suggests that at 1440p, the GPU is so saturated that preset changes beyond Medium have little impact on the final frame rate.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently low. Low averages 47.2 FPS, Medium 32.5 FPS, and High 23.6 FPS. Ultra is the worst at 22.6 FPS. The relative drop from Low to Medium at 4K is 14.7 FPS (31%), while the drop from Medium to High is 8.9 FPS (27%). The compression of these numbers at 4K indicates that the GPU is running out of both compute and memory bandwidth, making preset adjustments less effective than at lower resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this setup ranks 1607 out of 1795 combos. That places it in the 89.6th percentile from the bottom, meaning it outperforms only about 10% of tested systems. This is a low ranking, but it is consistent with the hardware profile: the GTX 1660 SUPER is an end-of-life product (released in 2019) with a 55th percentile GPU score, and while the CPU is stronger (88th percentile), the pairing is heavily skewed toward the GPU's limitations.

The combo rank of 1607 indicates that most other CPU/GPU pairings in the database achieve higher frame rates in this specific game. The nearest rival comparison for the GPU shows it is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (delta -0.2%) and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics (delta -0.2%), both of which are integrated or low-power solutions. This underscores how dated the GTX 1660 SUPER is for a 2020 title that has received continuous updates. The CPU, meanwhile, is competitive with the Intel Core i7-12800H (delta 0%) and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645 (delta 0.2%), but that strength is wasted in this game because the GPU cannot push enough frames to utilize the CPU's full potential.

The practical takeaway is that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with medium settings, and it will struggle at higher resolutions. Users with this hardware should not expect to max out the game's visuals; instead, they should focus on tuning settings to maintain a stable frame rate, as the data shows that Ultra offers no meaningful benefit over High at any resolution.

CPU Role

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. Its benchmark scores are strong: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21914 and a single-core score of 3093, with a Geekbench multicore of 11209. The CPU's percentile rank of 88 means it is faster than 88% of all CPUs in the database, and its nearest rivals are mobile and desktop parts with similar average scores, such as the Intel Core i7-12800H (32513 vs 32508) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7645 (32446).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and draw calls, but this game is known to be heavily GPU-dependent, especially at higher resolutions. The measured FPS data confirms this: the CPU is not the bottleneck, as evidenced by the fact that FPS scales down consistently with resolution. If the CPU were the limit, we would expect 1080p and 4K results to be similar, but they are not. The 1080p Low result of 78.5 FPS versus the 4K Low result of 47.2 FPS shows a 40% drop, which is entirely attributable to the GPU.

The 10 cores and 16 threads provide enough parallel processing for the simulator's terrain streaming and AI traffic, but the 20 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 or DDR5) are not tested in this benchmark. The CPU's single-thread performance (3093 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is adequate for the game's main thread, but the overall frame rate is capped by the GPU's 5.027 TFLOPS and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. In short, the i5-14400F is a capable partner that is held back by the GTX 1660 SUPER, and upgrading the GPU would yield far larger FPS gains than any CPU change.