Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT combination delivers a highly playable Microsoft Flight Simulator experience, with frame rates that scale predictably across resolutions and settings. The data shows this pairing is positioned in the middle of the pack, ranking 868th out of 1795 tested combos, making it a solid, mainstream option for virtual pilots. The CPU’s six-core design and the GPU’s substantial memory allocation work in concert to handle the simulation’s demanding workload, though the results reveal clear bottlenecks at higher graphical presets.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo perform at 1080p with Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the combo achieves an average of 72.7 FPS. This is nearly identical to the 73.6 FPS average seen at High settings, indicating that the CPU or game engine limits performance at this resolution when graphical load is high, rather than the GPU.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p?

A: The average frame rate drops from 100.2 FPS at Low settings to 59.1 FPS at Ultra settings at 2560x1440. This represents a significant 41.1 FPS reduction, showing the heavy impact of graphical presets on the GPU’s workload.

Q: Is the RX 6750 XT capable of 4K gaming in this title?

A: Yes, but only at lower settings. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the combo averages 71.1 FPS. However, at High settings this falls to 44.7 FPS, and at Ultra it drops further to 43.6 FPS, which may not be smooth enough for all users.

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

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305, placing it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i3-10305 and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i3-1125G4. It is 0.4% faster than the Intel Xeon E-2134 but 0.6% slower than the Intel Core i7-8809G.

Q: What is the GPU’s performance percentile relative to all other tested GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT sits in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it outperforms the majority of tested graphics cards. Its average benchmark score is 35327.

Q: What memory configuration does the CPU support?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. This is standard for its platform and generation.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 868 out of 1795 tested combinations places it squarely in the middle of the performance distribution for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This positioning suggests that while not an elite setup, it is far from underpowered. The data indicates that this pairing is more than sufficient for smooth gameplay at mainstream resolutions, but it will not lead the charts in high-refresh-rate 4K scenarios.

Benchmark results show the CPU and GPU are relatively well-matched for this title. The CPU’s 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the GPU’s 79th percentile ranking among all GPUs create a system where the graphics card has more headroom than the processor. This imbalance becomes apparent at lower resolutions and settings, where the CPU’s limitations are more likely to surface. The combo’s overall rank reflects this balance, offering a consistent experience across the board rather than excelling in one specific area.

When compared to other tested combos, this setup’s performance is broadly competitive. The measured FPS data shows that it can handle the game’s most demanding settings, albeit with frame rates that dip below 60 FPS at 4K. This suggests the combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can maintain high frame rates even with Ultra settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a six-core, six-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture. It operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, providing a solid foundation for gaming workloads. The CPU’s 9 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth are typical for its generation and contribute to its overall capability.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for heavy simulation and physics calculations, the CPU plays a critical role. The benchmark results indicate that the i5-9400’s performance is a limiting factor at lower resolutions. For example, at 1920x1080, the average frame rate at Ultra settings (72.7 FPS) is nearly identical to that at High settings (73.6 FPS). This small difference suggests that the GPU is not the primary constraint; instead, the CPU’s ability to process game logic and draw calls becomes the bottleneck.

The CPU’s synthetic benchmark scores reinforce this observation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and single-core score of 1125 demonstrate modest performance compared to more modern processors. Its average benchmark score of 2305 places it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, and it trades blows with rivals like the Core i3-10305 and Core i7-8809G. For this game, the six physical cores without hyper-threading are adequate, but they limit performance when the GPU is capable of rendering frames faster than the CPU can feed it.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how this combo scales across different settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates range from 125 FPS at Low settings to 72.7 FPS at Ultra settings. The progression from Low to Medium (99.8 FPS) and then to High (73.6 FPS) shows a steep decline as graphical complexity increases. Notably, the jump from High to Ultra yields only a 0.9 FPS difference, reinforcing the CPU bottleneck at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results show a similar trend but with lower absolute numbers. The combo averages 100.2 FPS at Low settings, 80.2 FPS at Medium, 56.4 FPS at High, and 59.1 FPS at Ultra. Interestingly, the Ultra setting outperforms High by 2.7 FPS, which is likely due to variance in the game’s dynamic scenes. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 41.1 FPS, indicating that the GPU is now becoming more of a factor as resolution increases.

At 3840x2160, the GPU takes on a more prominent role. The average frame rates are 71.1 FPS at Low, 54.7 FPS at Medium, 44.7 FPS at High, and 43.6 FPS at Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 16.4 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is minimal at 1.1 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the RX 6750 XT is heavily loaded, and the differences between High and Ultra are less impactful on performance.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is a formidable graphics card built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 7 nm process node. It features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The GPU operates at a base clock of 2150 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 2495 MHz. Its 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs provide substantial raw computing power, reflected in its 13.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role becomes more critical at higher resolutions. The benchmark data shows that at 4K, the RX 6750 XT’s performance is the primary driver of frame rates. The difference between Low and Ultra settings at 3840x2160 is 27.5 FPS, demonstrating the GPU’s sensitivity to graphical load. At 1080p, however, the GPU’s capabilities are partially wasted due to the CPU bottleneck, as evidenced by the near-identical frame rates at High and Ultra settings.

The GPU’s 79th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 35327 highlight its competence. It sits close to rivals like the Radeon RX 5600M (0.2% faster) and the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (0.3% slower), showing it is a well-rounded performer. Its 12 GB VRAM is a significant asset for a simulation game that loads large textures and scenery data, ensuring that memory capacity is rarely a limiting factor even at 4K Ultra settings.