Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT combination produces a distinctive performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator, one that is heavily dictated by the CPU’s six-core configuration and the GPU’s substantial memory allocation. The i5-9400 operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, providing a solid foundation for the simulation’s complex physics and AI computations. Its six threads and 9 MB of shared L3 cache are adequate for the game’s main simulation thread, but the data suggests that this processor is the primary constraint in many scenarios, particularly at higher resolutions where the GPU is more capable of rendering the dense scenery. The CPU’s benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and a single-core score of 1125, place it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, indicating a mid-pack performer that does not excel in the single-threaded workloads that flight simulators often favor.

In this specific game, the pairing with the RX 6700 XT creates a bottleneck that is more pronounced at 1080p and 1440p, where the GPU has ample headroom to render frames quickly but is held back by the CPU’s ability to feed it data. The CPU’s performance is closely matched by its nearest rivals, with an average benchmark score of 2305, sitting just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i3-10305 and the Intel Core i3-1125G4, and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2134. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT, on the other hand, is a high-end GPU that ranks in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, with a substantial 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and a memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. This memory capacity is crucial for Flight Simulator, which loads vast textures and terrain data, and it allows the GPU to maintain high frame rates when the CPU is not the limiting factor. The GPU’s architecture, RDNA 2.0, includes 40 ray accelerators, though the game’s use of ray tracing is not a primary driver of these results.

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

The Intel Core i5-9400’s role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is defined by its six physical cores and six threads, a configuration that was common for mid-range desktop processors at its release. With a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, the processor can deliver bursts of performance when needed, but its lack of hyper-threading means it cannot handle as many concurrent tasks as a comparable eight-thread processor. The game’s engine is known for its heavy reliance on a single primary simulation thread, which means the CPU’s single-core performance is often more critical than its multi-core capabilities. The Cinebench R20 single-core score of 472 and the R23 single-core score of 1125 reflect a processor that is adequate but not exceptional in this regard, and the benchmark results in this game show that the CPU struggles to keep up with the GPU’s output at lower resolutions.

The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 122.7 FPS, which is a high number but still below what a more powerful CPU could deliver with this GPU. As the resolution increases, the frame rates drop, but the pattern is telling: at 1440p Low, the average is 96.1 FPS, and at 4K Low, it is 71.9 FPS. These numbers indicate that the CPU is not fully saturating the GPU at lower resolutions, as the frame rate drops are not proportional to the increase in pixel count. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and 14 nm process node are modest by modern standards, but they are not the primary issue; the issue is the architectural limits of the Coffee Lake design, which lacks the newer instruction sets and higher IPC of later generations. The processor’s memory support for DDR4 with dual-channel bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s is also a potential limiting factor, as Flight Simulator streams data from memory constantly, and any delay in data delivery can cause stutters or frame drops.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT ranks 964th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle tier of all configurations tested. This rank is surprisingly low given the GPU’s high percentile standing, which suggests that the CPU is dragging down the overall performance. The GPU alone ranks in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, but the combo’s rank of 964 out of 1795 means that many pairings with weaker GPUs but stronger CPUs outperform this setup. The data indicates that the CPU’s performance is the bottleneck, as the GPU’s capabilities are not fully utilized in most scenarios. The nearest rival for the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6800, has an average score of 33493, which is just 0.7% higher than the RX 6700 XT’s average score of 33721, but this does not translate to a significant difference in game performance when paired with the same CPU.

The combo’s rank is further contextualized by the CPU’s own standing, which is at the 50th percentile of all CPUs. This means that half of all CPUs tested are faster, and in a game like Flight Simulator that is sensitive to CPU performance, this places the combo at a disadvantage. For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i3-10305 and the Intel Core i3-1125G4, have nearly identical average scores, with delta percentages of 0.2% or less. This indicates that the i5-9400 is not uniquely weak for its class, but rather that the class itself is insufficient for maximizing the GPU’s potential in this game. The rank of 964 out of 1795 suggests that there are many combinations that achieve better frame rates, and the data implies that those combos likely feature CPUs with higher single-core performance or more threads.

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

The resolution scaling data reveals a clear pattern of diminishing returns as the resolution increases, which is typical for a CPU-bound system. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 122.7 FPS, but this drops to 96.1 FPS at 1440p and 71.9 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 26.6 FPS, a 21.7% decrease, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 24.2 FPS, a 25.2% decrease. These percentage drops are larger than what would be expected if the GPU were the sole limiting factor, because the GPU’s rendering workload increases with resolution, but the CPU’s workload remains roughly constant. The fact that the frame rate drops significantly when moving from 1440p to 4K suggests that the GPU is starting to become more of a factor at higher resolutions, but the CPU is still not able to fully saturate it.

At Ultra settings, the pattern is similar but with lower absolute frame rates. At 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 67.3 FPS, which drops to 55.9 FPS at 1440p and 41.3 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 11.4 FPS, a 16.9% decrease, and from 1440p to 4K is 14.6 FPS, a 26.1% decrease. The smaller percentage drop at 1080p to 1440p at Ultra settings compared to Low settings suggests that the GPU is more heavily loaded at Ultra, which reduces the relative impact of the CPU bottleneck. However, the absolute frame rates at 4K Ultra are low at 41.3 FPS, indicating that the combo is not well-suited for 4K gaming with maximum settings. The data strongly suggests that the CPU is the limiting component at 1080p and 1440p, while the GPU becomes a co-limiter at 4K, but even then, the CPU’s inability to deliver high minimum frame rates is a concern.

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

The measured FPS data provides a detailed view of the combo’s performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers an average of 122.7 FPS on Low settings, 92.7 FPS on Medium, 70.9 FPS on High, and 67.3 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 30 FPS, a significant jump, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 3.6 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset does not add much visual fidelity for the performance cost. At 2560x1440, the frame rates drop to 96.1 FPS on Low, 77.9 FPS on Medium, 58.9 FPS on High, and 55.9 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 18.2 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 3 FPS, again showing a diminishing return at the highest settings. At 3840x2160, the combo achieves 71.9 FPS on Low, 56.2 FPS on Medium, 38.5 FPS on High, and 41.3 FPS on Ultra. Notably, the Ultra setting at 4K produces a higher average FPS than the High setting, which is an anomaly in the data. This could be due to a difference in how the game engine handles certain settings at 4K, but it is not a typical pattern.

The data shows that the combo is capable of smooth frame rates at 1080p and 1440p on lower settings, with 1080p Low exceeding 120 FPS and 1440p Low approaching 100 FPS. However, at 4K, even Low settings only achieve 71.9 FPS, which is below the 144 Hz refresh rate that many modern monitors support. For a flight simulator, where frame rate consistency is often more important than raw FPS, the lack of minimum FPS data is a limitation, but the averages suggest that the combo can handle the game at 1080p Medium or High settings with acceptable performance. The 4K results are less encouraging, with High settings dropping below 40 FPS, which would be a stuttery experience for most users.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT plays a crucial role in this combo, providing substantial graphics horsepower that is often underutilized due to the CPU’s limitations. The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s. This memory capacity is particularly beneficial for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams high-resolution textures and terrain data continuously. The 12 GB allocation allows the GPU to hold more assets in memory, reducing the need for frequent data transfers from the system RAM, which can cause stutters. The GPU’s clocks are high, with a base clock of 2321 MHz and a boost clock of 2581 MHz, and its game clock is rated at 2424 MHz. These clocks, combined with 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs, give the GPU a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s.

The GPU’s FP32 performance of 13.21 TFLOPS is substantial, but in this game, the GPU is not always the limiting factor. The benchmark results show that the GPU ranks in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 33721, and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800, is only 0.7% slower on average. This suggests that the RX 6700 XT is a high-performing GPU, but its capabilities are capped by the CPU in this combo. The GPU’s 40 ray accelerators are present, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s implementation of ray tracing is not a major factor in these measured results, as the FPS data does not show a significant drop that would indicate ray tracing is enabled. The GPU’s TDP of 230 W and its suggested PSU of 550 W indicate that it is a power-hungry component, but this does not directly affect the game’s performance metrics. Overall, the GPU’s role is to provide high frame rates when the CPU can feed it enough data, and the data shows that at 1080p Low, it can achieve over 120 FPS, but at 4K Ultra, it is limited to just over 40 FPS due to the combined constraints of the CPU and the game’s demanding rendering requirements.