Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread desktop processor built on the Coffee Lake architecture using a 14 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip carries 9 MB of shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Its benchmark standing places it at the 50th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2305.

In synthetic multi-threaded workloads, the i5-9400 scores 803 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 3346 in R20 multi-core, and 7969 in R23 multi-core. Single-thread results are 113, 472, and 1125 in the same respective versions. These figures indicate a balanced but modest processor that is not designed to dominate heavily threaded flight simulation workloads. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for taxing both CPU and GPU, and the data here shows that this CPU's performance is closely matched by several rivals.

The nearest rivals by average score are the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2300 (0.2% slower), the Intel Core i3-1125G4 at 2299 (0.2% slower), and the Intel Xeon E-2134 at 2295 (0.4% slower). On the upper side, the Intel Core i7-8809G scores 2319, which is 0.6% faster. These delta percentages are extremely tight, meaning the i5-9400's processing power is effectively interchangeable with its immediate competition. For a flight simulator that relies on consistent frame pacing, this level of parity suggests that CPU-bound scenarios will not differentiate much between these chips.

The CPU's 6 threads are all that are available; there is no hyper-threading. This can become a bottleneck in scenarios where the simulator spawns many background simulation threads, but the measured FPS data (detailed later) shows that at lower resolutions and settings, the GPU becomes the limiting factor. At higher resolutions like 3840x2160, the CPU's role diminishes relative to the GPU's pixel-pushing burden.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 570 is a Polaris 20 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture using a 14 nm process. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The GPU's base clock is 1168 MHz with a boost clock of 1244 MHz, while memory runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). It packs 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 39.81 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 159.2 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is rated at 5.095 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The card has a 150 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 450 W power supply.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 570 scores 880 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 44915 in Geekbench Metal, 32084 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 42752 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its percentile ranking is 74th among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 30158. The nearest rivals are striking: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 30109 (0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT scores 30097 (0.2% lower), and the NVIDIA Tesla M60 scores 29969 (0.6% lower). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile is 0.8% faster at 29928. This places the RX 570 in a peculiar position where its average score is nearly identical to much newer and higher-tier cards, likely due to the specific mix of benchmark workloads.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 4 GB VRAM is a critical constraint. The measured FPS data shows that at 3840x2160, even on Low settings, the average frame rate is only 27.3 FPS. This is not a CPU limitation; it is the GPU struggling with the resolution's pixel count and the simulator's texture streaming demands. The 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1080p but becomes a bottleneck at higher resolutions where more data must be moved per frame.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-9400 compare to its closest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-9400's average benchmark score is 2305, which is within 0.6% of all four nearest rivals. The Intel Core i3-10305 and i3-1125G4 are each 0.2% slower, while the Intel Core i7-8809G is 0.6% faster. This means there is no meaningful performance gap between them.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX 570's 4 GB VRAM sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator at high resolutions?

A: The data indicates it is not. At 3840x2160 on High settings, the average FPS is 17.5, and even on Low settings it only reaches 27.3 FPS. The VRAM capacity and bandwidth are insufficient to maintain playable frame rates at 4K.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in this game?

A: Based on measured FPS, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo approaches playable frame rates. At Low settings it averages 50.4 FPS, and at Medium it averages 40.9 FPS. The 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 resolutions all fall below 38.3 FPS even on Low.

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

A: The combo ranks 1686 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 6% of all combos, indicating that it is a weak pairing for this demanding title.

Q: Which settings preset provides the highest frame rate?

A: Across all three resolutions, the Low preset consistently delivers the highest average FPS: 50.4 at 1080p, 38.3 at 1440p, and 27.3 at 4K. The Ultra preset delivers the lowest frame rates at every resolution.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU bottleneck this game more?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the CPU's 6 threads can keep up, and the GPU is the limiting factor. At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the bottleneck, as frame rates drop to 17.5-27.3 FPS regardless of settings, while the CPU's workload relative to the GPU becomes smaller.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 570 ranks 1686 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a bottom-decile result, placing it in the 6th percentile of all tested hardware pairings. The data shows that this combination is unsuited for smooth gameplay in this title, particularly because the RX 570's 4 GB VRAM and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the simulator's high-resolution textures and geometry streaming.

The CPU's 50th percentile ranking is not the primary issue; the GPU's 74th percentile ranking is also not catastrophic. However, the combination of a mid-range CPU with a modest GPU results in a system that cannot maintain 30 FPS at 2560x1440 or higher with any settings preset. Only at 1920x1080 Low does the combo exceed 50 FPS, which is borderline playable for a flight simulator where smoothness is critical for instrument reading and visual scanning.

Compared to the nearest rival GPUs, the RX 570's average score is within 0.8% of the RTX 5060, RX 7700 XT, Tesla M60, and RTX 5070 Mobile. This suggests that in synthetic benchmarks, the RX 570 is not dramatically slower than those cards, but the measured FPS in this specific game tells a different story. The game's reliance on VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth penalizes the RX 570 more heavily than synthetic scores would suggest.

Settings Recommendations

For users seeking the best experience with this combo, the data points to 1920x1080 with the Low preset as the only configuration that yields an average FPS above 50. At 1920x1080 Low, the measured average is 50.4 FPS, which is the only result in the entire dataset that clears the 50 FPS threshold. The Medium preset at 1920x1080 drops to 40.9 FPS, which is still technically playable but with noticeable dips during complex scenery.

At 2560x1440, even the Low preset only achieves 38.3 FPS, and the Medium preset falls to 32.9 FPS. These are marginal for a flight simulator where fluid camera movement is essential. The 3840x2160 resolution is effectively unplayable, with the High preset at 17.5 FPS and the Ultra preset at 18.7 FPS, both far below the threshold for comfortable simulation.

The recommendation is clear: run the game at 1920x1080 with Low settings for a responsive experience, or accept a compromised 30-40 FPS range at 1440p with Low or Medium settings. The Ultra preset is not viable at any resolution, as the highest Ultra result is 29.6 FPS at 1920x1080, which is below the 30 FPS minimum for smooth simulation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS across settings is as follows: Low delivers 50.4 FPS, Medium delivers 40.9 FPS, High delivers 28.8 FPS, and Ultra delivers 29.6 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 0.8 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds visual features that do not proportionally impact performance, or that both are equally GPU-bound. The jump from Low to Medium is a 9.5 FPS drop, while the jump from Medium to High is a 12.1 FPS drop, indicating diminishing returns as settings increase.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 38.3 FPS, Medium at 32.9 FPS, High at 21.6 FPS, and Ultra at 24.7 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra is 3.1 FPS faster than High at this resolution, which is an anomaly in the data. This could be due to different rendering paths or load balancing, but the data shows that High is the worst-performing preset at 1440p. The drop from Low to Medium is 5.4 FPS, and from Medium to High is 11.3 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 27.3 FPS, Medium at 23.6 FPS, High at 17.5 FPS, and Ultra at 18.7 FPS. Again, Ultra slightly outperforms High by 1.2 FPS. The resolution scaling is severe: from 1080p Low to 1440p Low, there is a 12.1 FPS drop, and from 1440p Low to 4K Low, there is an 11.0 FPS drop. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is likely the culprit, as higher resolutions require more texture data to be swapped in and out of the 224.0 GB/s memory bus.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset is always the fastest, and the Ultra preset is never the slowest. The High preset is the slowest at both 1440p and 4K, while at 1080p, High is 0.8 FPS faster than Ultra. This inconsistent behavior suggests that the game's settings presets do not scale linearly in their performance impact, and users may find that custom settings between Low and Medium offer the best balance for this hardware.