Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i5-14600KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 presents a clear narrative of a system where the graphics card is the primary constraint at higher resolutions. The measured FPS across the three tested resolutions shows significant performance degradation as pixel count increases, but the pattern of that degradation offers insight into the balance of this particular pairing.

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

The progression from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 reveals a steep performance curve that becomes progressively more punishing at higher settings. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 92 FPS at 1080p to 74 FPS at 1440p, and then to 55 FPS at 4K. That represents a 40% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. The scaling is even more dramatic at Ultra settings, where the average drops from 51 FPS at 1080p to 41 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 30 FPS at 4K — a 41% decline from 1080p to 4K.

The fact that the percentage drop is relatively consistent across settings suggests that resolution scaling is the dominant variable here. When the resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, the GPU must render four times as many pixels, and the RTX 2060's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are clearly being taxed. The 4K High setting produces 32 FPS, which is below the 4K Medium result of 42 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra at 4K is only 2 FPS (32 vs 30). This narrowing gap at the top end indicates that the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling regardless of quality preset.

At 1080p, the story is different. The jump from Low (92 FPS) to Medium (71 FPS) is a 23% drop, while the jump from Medium to High (54 FPS) is a 24% drop. These are substantial reductions that suggest the GPU is still the limiting factor even at the lowest resolution, but the headroom is much greater. The 1080p Low result of 92 FPS shows that the system can achieve high frame rates when the GPU load is reduced, which implies the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately at lower resolutions. The CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads, with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, appear sufficient for this simulation at 1080p, but the GPU's limits become apparent as resolution climbs.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is built on the Turing architecture using a 12 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 445 mm² and 10,800 million transistors. Its base clock of 1365 MHz and boost clock of 1680 MHz are modest by modern standards, but the card's 1920 shading units and 120 texture mapping units provide the raw compute throughput of 6.451 TFLOPS FP32. The memory configuration is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This VRAM capacity is likely a critical factor in Flight Simulator's demanding scenery rendering.

The measured FPS data shows that 6 GB is sufficient to run the game at all tested settings, but the performance at 4K Ultra (30 FPS) and 4K High (32 FPS) suggests the card is running out of headroom. The 4K Medium result of 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS and maximum of 49 FPS indicates that the card can maintain playable frame rates when settings are reduced. The RTX 2060's percentile rank among all GPUs is 58th, placing it in the middle of the pack, and its average benchmark score of 15290 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283), which is a 0% delta. This close proximity to a much older card in synthetic benchmarks is telling, though the RTX 2060's architectural advantages in DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support may not be fully captured in those older tests.

The memory clock of 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed is a point of analysis. The bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is the same as what the card was designed to deliver, and the data shows that at 4K, the frame rates across all settings (30-55 FPS) are tightly clustered compared to 1080p (51-92 FPS). This clustering at 4K suggests that memory bandwidth is becoming a bottleneck, as the GPU cannot fetch texture data fast enough to keep the shading units busy. The card's 48 ROPs and 80.64 GPixel/s pixel rate are also limiting factors at high resolutions, which explains why the 4K Ultra result (30 FPS) barely differs from the 4K High result (32 FPS).

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

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz are strong figures, and the 24 MB of shared L3 cache provides ample space for game data. The processor's benchmark results are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544 and single-core score of 4594, a Geekbench multi-core score of 17085, and a Passmark multi-thread score of 38697. These numbers place the CPU in the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49394.

The nearest rival to this CPU is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which scores 49228 — a delta of 0.3% — meaning the i5-14600KF is nearly identical to that chip in synthetic tests. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 trails by 0.8% with a score of 48995. In the context of Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the CPU's single-core performance is crucial. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4594 and Passmark single-thread score of 4273 indicate strong per-core performance, which is likely why the system can achieve 92 FPS at 1080p Low. The game's simulation loop — physics, flight dynamics, and AI traffic — typically runs on a limited number of threads, and the i5-14600KF's 5.30 GHz boost clock provides the necessary speed.

However, the data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 4K, the frame rates drop to 30-55 FPS across settings, and the delta between 4K Low (55 FPS) and 4K Ultra (30 FPS) is 25 FPS, which is a 45% reduction. This is a GPU-driven decline. The CPU's 14 cores and 20 threads are more than sufficient for the game's multithreaded rendering tasks, and the 125 W TDP suggests the processor has ample power headroom. The fact that the system achieves 92 FPS at 1080p Low while the GPU's Passmark G3D score is 14111 (with a percentile rank of 58) indicates that the CPU is capable of driving the GPU to its limits at lower resolutions, but the GPU's compute and memory bandwidth become the limiting factor as resolution increases.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 22% of all combinations tested, which is a surprisingly low ranking given the CPU's strength. The discrepancy between the CPU's 90th percentile ranking and the combo's low position in-game underscores the GPU's dominance in determining overall performance for this title.

To put the combo rank in perspective, the CPU's nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (0.3% delta), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (0.4% delta), and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (0.8% delta) — would likely achieve similar frame rates when paired with the same GPU, as the CPU is not the limiting factor. Conversely, the GPU's nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (0% delta), AMD Radeon 680M (0.1% delta), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (0.6% delta), and AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.8% delta) — would produce nearly identical results in this game when paired with this CPU. The combo rank of 2912 suggests that the RTX 2060 is holding back the i5-14600KF significantly.

The measured FPS data confirms this: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 92 FPS, which is respectable, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 30 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The rank of 2912 out of 3714 is a direct consequence of the GPU's mid-tier positioning (58th percentile) combined with the game's heavy GPU demands at high resolutions. A system with this CPU but a higher-tier GPU would likely rank much higher, as the CPU's 32544 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 4594 single-core score provide ample headroom for any GPU on the market.

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

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

A: The best measured average FPS is 92, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the highest frame rate across all resolution and settings combinations in the measured data.

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

A: Yes, but with limitations. At 3840x2160, the system achieves 55 FPS at Low settings, 42 FPS at Medium, 32 FPS at High, and 30 FPS at Ultra. The Medium setting provides a minimum of 36 FPS, which is playable, but the Ultra setting at 30 FPS may feel inconsistent.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF has an average benchmark score of 49394, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228) and 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196). It is 0.8% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (48995).

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and how does it affect performance?

A: The RTX 2060 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The measured FPS data shows that at 4K, the frame rates across settings are tightly clustered (30-55 FPS), suggesting memory bandwidth becomes a limiting factor at high resolutions.

Q: At which resolution does the system show the most headroom for higher settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the system shows the most headroom. The Low setting achieves 92 FPS, Medium achieves 71 FPS, High achieves 54 FPS, and Ultra achieves 51 FPS. The 41 FPS gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution indicates the GPU has more capacity than at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations?

A: This combo ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower quartile of all combinations tested.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 71 FPS average with a minimum of 61 FPS and maximum of 82 FPS. This provides a smooth experience that is 19 FPS higher than the High preset (54 FPS) and only 20 FPS lower than the Low preset (92 FPS). The Medium setting appears to be the sweet spot for 1080p, as it maintains a solid frame rate while offering better visual quality than Low. The Ultra preset at 51 FPS is also playable, but the 20 FPS drop from Medium to Ultra may not justify the visual gains.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset achieves 58 FPS average with a minimum of 49 FPS and maximum of 66 FPS. This is the only setting at this resolution that stays above 50 FPS on average. The High preset drops to 43 FPS, and the Ultra preset to 41 FPS, both of which are playable but may exhibit noticeable stutters in dense scenery. The Low preset at 74 FPS is the best for competitive or high-refresh-rate play, but the visual quality reduction is significant. For a balanced experience at 1440p, Medium is the recommended preset.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Medium preset achieves 42 FPS with a minimum of 36 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that maintains a minimum above 30 FPS. The Low preset at 55 FPS is the highest frame rate at 4K, but the visual quality is substantially reduced. The High (32 FPS) and Ultra (30 FPS) presets are below the 30 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay and should be avoided unless the user prioritizes visual fidelity over frame rate. For 4K, the Medium preset is the recommended choice, as it provides the best balance of playability and visual quality.

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

The complete measured FPS data for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator is as follows:

At 1920x1080, the system achieves its highest performance. The Low setting produces an average of 92 FPS. The Medium setting produces an average of 71 FPS, with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. The High setting produces an average of 54 FPS. The Ultra setting produces an average of 51 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance drops significantly. The Low setting produces an average of 74 FPS. The Medium setting produces an average of 58 FPS, with a minimum of 49 FPS and a maximum of 66 FPS. The High setting produces an average of 43 FPS. The Ultra setting produces an average of 41 FPS.

At 3840x2160, performance is the lowest. The Low setting produces an average of 55 FPS. The Medium setting produces an average of 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 FPS and a maximum of 49 FPS. The High setting produces an average of 32 FPS. The Ultra setting produces an average of 30 FPS.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the Medium setting always provides the most detailed FPS range (minimum and maximum values are only recorded for Medium), which may indicate that this preset is the most stable in terms of frame pacing. The Low setting at 1080p (92 FPS) is the only result above 90 FPS, and the Ultra setting at 4K (30 FPS) is the only result at or below 30 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution is 41 FPS at 1080p, 33 FPS at 1440p, and 25 FPS at 4K, showing that the GPU's limitations become more pronounced as resolution increases.