Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent decline as resolution increases, which points directly at the GPU as the primary limiting component in this pairing. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 56.3 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset drops that to 44 FPS, a reduction of roughly 22%. At 3840x2160, the Low preset yields 33.8 FPS, which is 40% below the 1080p result. This scaling pattern — where each step up in pixel count costs a large fraction of performance — is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, and the RX 580's modest compute resources (6.175 TFLOPS FP32) are clearly being saturated by the simulator's rendering workload.

The gap between resolutions narrows at higher settings, but for a different reason. At Ultra, 1080p produces 31.3 FPS, 1440p produces 26.5 FPS, and 4K produces 17.9 FPS. The absolute delta between 1080p and 1440p at Ultra is only 4.8 FPS, while the delta between 1440p and 4K is 8.6 FPS. This suggests that at Ultra, the game's heavy effects and draw distances are already pushing the GPU to its limits even at 1080p, so the relative cost of additional pixels becomes less predictable. The 4K Ultra result of 17.9 FPS is barely playable by any standard, and the 4K High result of 16 FPS is effectively a slideshow.

What the data does not show is a CPU bottleneck. If the Core i5-14600KF were the limiting factor, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the CPU's work does not scale with pixel count. Instead, FPS drops by roughly half from 1080p Low to 4K Low, which is a textbook GPU-limited signature. The CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads are more than sufficient for the simulator's simulation and physics threads; the RX 580's 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are what constrain frame delivery.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo capable of 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The highest measured average is 56.3 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. Every other preset and resolution combination falls below 60 FPS, with Medium at 1080p reaching 42.5 FPS and High at 1080p reaching 29.6 FPS.

Q: What is the best 4K result in the measured data?

A: The best 4K result is 33.8 FPS at Low settings. Medium drops to 22 FPS, Ultra to 17.9 FPS, and High to 16 FPS. Even the best 4K result is well below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth flight simulation.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its closest rivals in raw GPU benchmarks?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score is 13559. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, scores 13564, a delta of 0%. The GTX 950 scores 13549, also a delta of 0.1%. This places the RX 580 statistically tied with those older NVIDIA parts in aggregate GPU performance.

Q: Does the CPU's performance percentile suggest it holds the combo back?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49367. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, scores 49062, a delta of 0.6%. This indicates the CPU is a high-end part that should not bottleneck a GPU of the RX 580's class.

Q: What is the playable threshold for this game based on the data?

A: The data shows playable (above 30 FPS) results at 1080p Low (56.3 FPS), 1080p Medium (42.5 FPS), 1440p Low (44 FPS), and 4K Low (33.8 FPS). All other measured combinations fall below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for acceptable interactivity.

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

A: The combo ranks 1660 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested combos, reflecting the GPU's age relative to the simulator's demanding rendering requirements.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame field places this pairing at 1660 out of 1795 tested combinations. This is a low rank, signaling that the RX 580 is severely underpowered for Microsoft Flight Simulator's workload, even when paired with a strong CPU. The data indicates the GPU is the bottleneck: the CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. This massive gap in relative standing — 40 percentile points — explains why the combo lands so low in the overall rankings.

To put the CPU's contribution in context, its nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores are the Intel Core i5-14600K (delta 0.4%), the AMD EPYC 4345P (delta -0.5%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (delta 0.6%). These are all high-end desktop or server parts with strong multi-threaded performance. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32889 and single-core score of 4643 confirm it can handle demanding simulation workloads with headroom. The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 53rd percentile, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (delta 0%) — a card from 2010. This stark contrast in hardware generations is what drags the combo rank down.

The rank of 1660 out of 1795 means there are only 135 tested combinations that perform worse. Given the game's release date of 2020-08-17, and the GPU's release date of 2017-04-17, the age gap is evident. The RX 580 was never designed for the kind of photogrammetry-heavy, cloud-rendering, and weather-simulation workloads that Flight Simulator throws at it, and the benchmark data confirms this limitation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear progression from Low to Ultra. Low averages 56.3 FPS, which is the only preset to approach 60 FPS. Medium drops to 42.5 FPS, a 24.5% reduction from Low. High averages 29.6 FPS, which is a 30.4% drop from Medium. Ultra averages 31.3 FPS, which is actually slightly higher than High (a 5.7% increase). This anomaly suggests that at 1080p, the difference between High and Ultra may involve settings that are not heavily pixel-bound, or the measurement variance is significant enough to invert the expected order. Regardless, neither High nor Ultra reaches 30 FPS consistently at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the pattern is more consistent. Low averages 44 FPS, Medium averages 31.1 FPS, High averages 26.6 FPS, and Ultra averages 26.5 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is negligible (0.1 FPS), indicating that at 1440p, the GPU is already so saturated that the additional Ultra effects cost almost nothing extra in frame rate terms — or that the settings are CPU-limited at that point. The drop from Low to Medium is 29.3%, which is similar to the 1080p drop from Low to Medium (24.5%). The 1440p Low result of 44 FPS is the second-best measured result across all resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low averages 33.8 FPS, Medium drops to 22 FPS, High falls to 16 FPS, and Ultra sits at 17.9 FPS. The 4K High result of 16 FPS is the lowest in the entire dataset, while 4K Ultra is slightly higher at 17.9 FPS. Again, the High-versus-Ultra inversion appears, suggesting that the game's High preset may enable certain effects (such as advanced shadows or reflections) that are more expensive than the incremental Ultra effects. The 4K Low result of 33.8 FPS is the only 4K preset that crosses the 30 FPS playability threshold.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal experience balances frame rate against visual fidelity. At 1920x1080, Medium settings (42.5 FPS) provide the best compromise between smoothness and image quality. Low settings (56.3 FPS) are smoother but sacrifice too much detail for a flight simulator, where visual clarity of terrain and instruments matters. High (29.6 FPS) and Ultra (31.3 FPS) both fall below the 30 FPS threshold, making them less desirable despite their visual upgrades.

At 2560x1440, Low settings (44 FPS) are the only preset that stays comfortably above 30 FPS. Medium (31.1 FPS) is right at the edge, while High (26.6 FPS) and Ultra (26.5 FPS) are below. For users with a 1440p monitor, Low is the recommended preset for playable frame rates. Medium is acceptable if the user tolerates occasional dips below 30 FPS.

At 3840x2160, Low settings (33.8 FPS) are the only viable option. Every other preset falls below 22 FPS, which is not suitable for interactive flight. The data suggests that 4K is only marginally playable on this combo, and even then only with the lowest visual quality settings.

The overall recommendation is to run the game at 1080p with Medium settings for the best balance, or at 1440p with Low settings if higher resolution is preferred. The 4K Low setting is technically playable but offers a suboptimal experience. Users seeking higher visual fidelity would need a more powerful GPU than the RX 580.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a high-end desktop CPU, and its benchmark scores reflect that. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32889 and single-core score of 4643 place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49367.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic, which are heavily single-threaded tasks. The high boost clock of 5.30 GHz and strong single-core performance (Geekbench single-core score of 2778) are directly relevant to this workload. The 14 cores and 20 threads also provide ample multi-threading headroom for background tasks and the game's occasional multi-threaded rendering passes. However, the benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combo. The FPS scaling across resolutions is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, meaning the CPU has spare capacity while the RX 580 is fully utilized.

The CPU's nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores include the Intel Core i5-14600K (delta 0.4%), AMD EPYC 4345P (delta -0.5%), and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (delta 0.6%). These deltas are all within 1%, indicating that the i5-14600KF is mathematically tied with these parts in overall CPU performance. This means that swapping to a different high-end CPU would not meaningfully change the frame rates in this game, as the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU's role here is to ensure that it never holds back the GPU, and the data confirms it does not.