Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

The measured data reveals a clear hierarchy across the four available presets, and the choice hinges on whether the user prioritizes visual fidelity or raw frame rate. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the "Ultra" preset at 4K delivers 77.5 FPS, which is playable but leaves little headroom for the complex scenery and weather systems that can cause dips. The "High" preset at 4K, at 84.7 FPS, offers a modest improvement while retaining most of the visual features that matter in a flight sim, such as detailed terrain and aircraft models. Given that the difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 7.2 FPS, the High preset appears to be the sweet spot for a balanced experience on a 4K display.

However, the data also shows that the "Medium" preset provides a substantial frame rate boost with a smaller visual penalty. At 4K, Medium hits 109.7 FPS, which is 32.2% faster than High. This makes Medium the best choice for users who prioritize smoothness over maximum detail, especially in a simulator where frame pacing can affect the perception of flight physics. The "Low" preset, at 140.8 FPS at 4K, is the performance king but strips away many of the visual elements that make the game immersive. The data suggests that for most users, Medium at 4K offers the best compromise, as it maintains a high frame rate while still providing a rich visual environment.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts slightly. Ultra delivers 107.2 FPS, which is very close to the 4K Medium figure, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiter at this resolution. High at 1440p yields 110.4 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra here is a mere 3.2 FPS. This suggests that at 1440p, the game is becoming more CPU-bound, as the GPU has enough headroom to render the scene at high detail without significant frame rate loss. For 1440p users, the High preset is the recommended choice, as it provides a nearly identical frame rate to Ultra but with better stability in complex scenes.

At 1080p, the story is different again. Ultra achieves 133.9 FPS, and High achieves 139.8 FPS, a difference of only 5.9 FPS. Yet, the jump from Ultra to Medium is 51.8 FPS, reaching 185.7. This non-linear scaling indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is the limiting factor, and the GPU is not being fully utilized at higher settings. For 1080p displays, the High preset is again the best recommendation, as it balances the CPU and GPU loads effectively. The data implies that users should not use Ultra at lower resolutions unless they have a very high refresh rate monitor, as the frame rate gain from dropping to High is minimal.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical, particularly for physics calculations, AI traffic, and world streaming. The data shows that at 1080p, the frame rates across settings are relatively close (133.9 FPS at Ultra to 226.5 FPS at Low), which indicates that the CPU is the bottleneck at this resolution. The i5-14600KF's high boost clock of 5.30 GHz is likely the reason why the Low preset can reach 226.5 FPS, as the simulator relies heavily on single-threaded performance for many of its core systems.

The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache is also relevant, as flight simulators often access large terrain and object databases. The benchmark scores support this: the i5-14600KF achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32889 and a single-core score of 4643, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K, has a deltaPct of 0.4%, meaning the 14600KF is essentially identical in performance, while the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is 0.6% behind. This suggests that the CPU has ample headroom for the game's multi-threaded aspects, but its single-core performance is what drives the high frame rates at 1080p.

Interestingly, the data shows that going from 1080p Low to 1080p Ultra only reduces the frame rate from 226.5 FPS to 133.9 FPS, a 40.9% drop. This is a significant reduction, but it is much smaller than the drop from 1440p Low to 1440p Ultra, which is from 191 FPS to 107.2 FPS (a 43.9% drop). The fact that the CPU bottleneck at 1080p is less severe than at 1440p suggests that the GPU starts to take over as the resolution increases. The i5-14600KF's 20 threads are likely being utilized well by the simulator, as the game is known to scale across multiple cores, but the single-thread performance is the ultimate arbiter of peak frame rates.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 226.5, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This indicates that the CPU can push very high frame rates when the GPU is not constrained by resolution.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to Ultra at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the Low preset achieves 140.8 FPS, while Ultra achieves 77.5 FPS. This represents a 81.7% increase in frame rate, showing a massive performance gap between the two presets.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU become the limiting factor at higher resolutions?

A: The data indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is the primary limiter, as the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra is relatively small (92.6 FPS). At 4K, the GPU becomes the limiter, as the difference between Low and Ultra is 63.3 FPS, showing a larger performance drop from the increased pixel count.

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

A: This combo ranks 11th out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the top 1% of all systems tested.

Q: How does the i5-14600KF compare to its closest rival in CPU benchmarks?

A: The i5-14600KF has an average benchmark score of 49367, which is 0.4% higher than the Intel Core i5-14600K (49166) and 0.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (49062). This shows it is marginally faster than its direct competitors.

Q: Is the RTX 5090's VRAM a factor in this game?

A: The RTX 5090 has 32 GB of GDDR7 memory, which is more than sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's high-resolution textures. The data shows that even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate is 77.5 FPS, indicating that VRAM capacity is not a limiting factor in this configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 11th out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a top-tier result, placing the system in the 99th percentile of all tested configurations. The data shows that this ranking is driven by the synergy between the CPU's high single-thread performance and the GPU's massive rasterization power. The i5-14600KF's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4643 is critical for the game's physics and AI, while the RTX 5090's 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 performance handles the heavy graphics load.

Compared to other test combinations, this system is notably faster than the vast majority of setups, likely due to the RTX 5090's dominance. The GPU's nearest rival, the RTX 5090 D, has a deltaPct of 0.1%, meaning the standard 5090 is essentially equal in performance. The fact that this combo ranks 11th despite the CPU being a mid-range 14th-gen part suggests that the GPU is the primary driver of the ranking. The data implies that if a higher-end CPU, such as a Core i9 or Ryzen 9, were paired with this GPU, the ranking could potentially be even higher, but the i5-14600KF is clearly not holding the system back in a significant way.

The ranking also indicates that the system is well-balanced for this specific game. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to be demanding on both CPU and GPU, and the 11th place finish shows that this combination handles the load efficiently. The measured FPS data supports this, as the system maintains playable frame rates at all resolutions and settings, with the lowest average being 77.5 FPS at 4K Ultra. This is a strong result for a game that is often used as a benchmark for high-end systems.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales across three resolutions: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. At the Low preset, the frame rates are 226.5 FPS at 1080p, 191 FPS at 1440p, and 140.8 FPS at 4K. This represents a 15.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 26.3% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is relatively linear, indicating that the GPU is not overwhelmed at any resolution, and the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with enough data.

At the Ultra preset, the scaling is more dramatic. The frame rates are 133.9 FPS at 1080p, 107.2 FPS at 1440p, and 77.5 FPS at 4K. This is a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 27.7% drop from 1440p to 4K. The larger drop from 1080p to 1440p compared to the Low preset suggests that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as the resolution increases, which is expected given the higher pixel count and more detailed rendering.

The most telling data point is the difference between 1080p and 4K at each preset. At Low, the 4K frame rate is 62.1% of the 1080p frame rate. At Ultra, the 4K frame rate is 57.9% of the 1080p frame rate. This indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the frame rate drop is more pronounced at higher settings. The CPU, while strong, is not able to compensate for the additional GPU load at 4K. The data suggests that users who want to play at 4K should be prepared for a significant frame rate reduction compared to 1080p, even with this high-end hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across all combinations of resolution and settings.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers the following average frame rates:

• Low: 226.5 FPS
• Medium: 185.7 FPS
• High: 139.8 FPS
• Ultra: 133.9 FPS

The difference between Low and Ultra is 92.6 FPS, showing that the CPU is the bottleneck at this resolution, as the GPU has plenty of headroom. The step from Medium to High is the largest drop at 45.9 FPS, indicating that the High preset introduces significantly more graphical complexity.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are:

• Low: 191 FPS
• Medium: 147.7 FPS
• High: 110.4 FPS
• Ultra: 107.2 FPS

Here, the GPU starts to become more of a factor, as the gap between Low and Ultra is 83.8 FPS. The drop from High to Ultra is only 3.2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset at this resolution is not much more demanding than High, likely due to the CPU still being a limiting factor.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are:

• Low: 140.8 FPS
• Medium: 109.7 FPS
• High: 84.7 FPS
• Ultra: 77.5 FPS

The gap between Low and Ultra is 63.3 FPS, which is the smallest of the three resolutions. This confirms that the GPU is the dominant factor at 4K, as the higher pixel count puts significant strain on the RTX 5090. The drop from High to Ultra is 7.2 FPS, which is still relatively small, but the overall frame rates are lower, making the Ultra preset less attractive at this resolution.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is a powerhouse GPU with 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. Its clock speeds are 2017 MHz base and 2407 MHz boost, and it features 21760 shading units, 170 RT cores, and 680 tensor cores. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the vast landscapes, detailed aircraft models, and dynamic lighting effects. The data shows that the GPU is the primary driver of performance at higher resolutions, as evidenced by the significant frame rate drops from 1080p to 4K.

The RTX 5090's 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is crucial for handling the game's complex shaders and post-processing effects. Its 32 GB of VRAM is more than sufficient for the game's high-resolution textures, and the data shows no signs of VRAM-related stuttering or performance degradation. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 39650 places it in the 94th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rival, the RTX 5090 D, is only 0.1% behind in average benchmark score. This indicates that the RTX 5090 is at the very top of the GPU performance hierarchy.

The data also reveals that the GPU is not the bottleneck at 1080p, as the frame rates are consistently high across all settings. At 4K, however, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, with the Ultra preset delivering 77.5 FPS. This is still a playable frame rate, but it shows that even the most powerful consumer GPU can be challenged by this simulator at maximum settings. The GPU's high pixel rate of 423.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,636.8 GTexel/s help maintain smooth performance, but the sheer complexity of the game's scenes at 4K ultimately limits the frame rate. The data suggests that users who want to push beyond 4K Ultra may need to consider using upscaling technologies, though the current frame rates are already respectable for a flight simulator.