Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-9400 + AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT — Benchmark Analysis

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT produces a distinctive performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator, one that shifts character dramatically depending on resolution and preset. Across the twelve measured configurations, this combo delivers average frame rates ranging from 35 FPS at 4K Ultra to 106 FPS at 1080p Low, placing it at rank 2344 out of 3714 tested combinations. The data reveals a system that is clearly GPU-limited at higher resolutions, but whose 6-core/6-thread CPU configuration becomes increasingly relevant as resolution drops and frame rates climb. The following analysis breaks down exactly how this pairing behaves, where its bottlenecks reside, and which settings deliver the most balanced experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and tells a clear story about where the limiting component sits. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 62 FPS at 1920x1080 to 50 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 37 FPS at 3840x2160. That represents a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is even more pronounced at Low settings: 106 FPS at 1080p, 85 FPS at 1440p, and 63 FPS at 4K — a 41% drop across the same resolution span. This near-linear decline with pixel count strongly indicates GPU-bound behavior; the Radeon RX 7600 XT's rendering throughput is the primary constraint as resolution increases.

At Medium settings, the same pattern holds with 82 FPS at 1080p, 66 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K. The proportional drops between successive resolutions are 20% and 26% respectively, slightly smaller than the High and Low presets but still consistent with a GPU-limited scenario. Interestingly, the Ultra preset shows the smallest absolute spread: 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-4K delta of 24 FPS is the smallest of any preset, suggesting that at Ultra settings, the CPU begins to share the bottleneck load even at lower resolutions, compressing the overall range.

The fact that 1080p Low reaches 106 FPS while 1080p Ultra only manages 59 FPS — a 47 FPS gap — demonstrates that the GPU has substantial headroom at lower resolutions but is quickly saturated by higher-quality rendering. The data indicates a system where the RX 7600 XT is the dominant limiting factor at 4K across all presets, while at 1080p the Intel Core i5-9400's six threads become a more meaningful contributor, particularly at Ultra where the CPU must feed the GPU with enough draw calls and simulation data to maintain higher frame rates.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database's tested combinations, this pairing sits at rank 2344 out of 3714, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the distribution. That ranking reflects the combination's overall performance across all measured scenarios, not just this game. The CPU alone holds the 47th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits at the 60th percentile among all graphics cards. The combo's rank in Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically — 2344 of 3714 — suggests that this game is somewhat less favorable to the pairing than its component-level percentiles might imply.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database illustrate its position: the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores within 0.2% of the i5-9400's average benchmark score, while the Intel Core i7-10710U is 0.3% behind and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 trails by 0.4%. The Intel Core i3-10305 leads by 0.4%. These sub-1% deltas indicate the i5-9400 sits in a tightly clustered performance band where no single rival offers a significant advantage. For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 is 0.3% behind, the AMD Radeon HD 7970M trails by 0.4%, and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 is 0.9% behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 leads by 0.7%. These close margins mean the combo's rank is less about any single component being weak and more about the pairing's overall balance in this specific flight simulator workload.

The rank of 2344 out of 3714 corresponds to roughly the 63rd percentile of all tested combos. Given that the GPU's individual percentile is 60 and the CPU's is 47, this game appears to reward the GPU slightly more than average, pulling the combo's rank modestly above what a simple average of the two component percentiles would predict. Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy reliance on GPU rendering for terrain and weather effects likely explains this tilt.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average is 106 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. The next highest is 85 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, followed by 82 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: How does the combo perform at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops to 35 FPS, which is the lowest measured result across all twelve configurations. The 4K High preset fares slightly better at 37 FPS.

Q: Is the system more CPU-bound or GPU-bound in this game?

A: The data indicates GPU-bound behavior at higher resolutions, as frame rates scale nearly linearly with pixel count. However, at 1080p, the gap between Low (106 FPS) and Ultra (59 FPS) suggests the CPU's six threads become a more significant factor at lower resolutions and higher settings.

Q: What is the frame rate range at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At Medium settings, the combo delivers 82 FPS at 1080p (min 70, max 95), 66 FPS at 1440p (min 56, max 76), and 49 FPS at 4K (min 42, max 56). These are the only configurations with reported min and max values.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: The combo ranks 2344 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle range, consistent with the CPU's 47th percentile and GPU's 60th percentile among all tested components.

Q: Which resolution provides the most playable experience?

A: At 2560x1440 with High settings, the combo averages 50 FPS, which offers a reasonable balance. At 1920x1080 High, it reaches 62 FPS, while 1080p Medium hits 82 FPS, making either viable depending on quality preferences.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers four resolutions and four quality presets, with average frame rates reported for all twelve combinations. Minimum and maximum values are only available for Medium settings across each resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 106 FPS average, Medium reaches 82 FPS with a min-max range of 70 to 95, High delivers 62 FPS, and Ultra drops to 59 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear progression where each step up in quality costs roughly 20-24 FPS on average.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 85 FPS for Low, 66 FPS for Medium (min 56, max 76), 50 FPS for High, and 47 FPS for Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 3 FPS at this resolution, suggesting diminishing returns from the Ultra preset. The difference between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, while Medium to High costs 16 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the pattern shifts further: Low averages 63 FPS, Medium 49 FPS (min 42, max 56), High 37 FPS, and Ultra 35 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 14 FPS, Medium-to-High is 12 FPS, and High-to-Ultra costs only 2 FPS. At 4K, the Ultra preset offers virtually no improvement in visual quality relative to its performance cost, while High and Ultra become nearly indistinguishable in frame rate terms.

The min-max data at Medium settings reveals consistency: at 1080p, the range spans 25 FPS (70 to 95); at 1440p, it spans 20 FPS (56 to 76); at 4K, it spans 14 FPS (42 to 56). This tightening range at higher resolutions further confirms the GPU-bound nature at 4K, where frame times become more uniform because the GPU is saturated. At 1080p, the wider range indicates more variability, likely from CPU-driven simulation and scenery loading spikes.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, paired with 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs. Its boost clock reaches 2755 MHz, with a game clock of 2470 MHz. These specifications place the GPU at the 60th percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 17083. The nearest rival in the database, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, leads by only 0.7%, while the GTX 690 trails by 0.3%.

The 16 GB VRAM capacity is notable for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can consume substantial memory for high-resolution textures and detailed scenery. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate of 35 FPS suggests the GPU is not memory-limited but rather compute-limited; the 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provide sufficient throughput for this workload. The RDNA 3.0 architecture's 22.57 TFLOPS FP32 performance is the more relevant constraint, as the game's rendering demands scale with pixel count and quality settings.

The GPU's performance in this game aligns with its benchmark percentile. At 1080p Low, the 106 FPS result shows the card can push well above 100 FPS when unburdened by heavy effects. However, the steep drop to 59 FPS at 1080p Ultra indicates that the card's compute resources are quickly consumed by the game's higher-quality shading and post-processing. The fact that 4K High (37 FPS) and 4K Ultra (35 FPS) are nearly identical suggests the Ultra preset's additional features are not the primary bottleneck — instead, the base rendering load at 4K already saturates the GPU.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing smooth frame rates, the 1080p Medium preset delivers 82 FPS on average, with a minimum of 70 FPS, providing a comfortable margin above typical 60 FPS targets. This configuration balances visual quality with performance headroom, and the reported min-max range of 70 to 95 FPS indicates acceptable consistency for flight simulation, where sudden scenery changes can cause brief dips.

At 1440p, the Medium preset averages 66 FPS with a min of 56 FPS, which remains playable but approaches the threshold where frame drops become noticeable. The High preset at 1440p drops to 50 FPS, which is generally acceptable for a flight simulator but may feel less fluid during demanding flyovers. For 4K users, even the Low preset only reaches 63 FPS, and Medium falls to 49 FPS. Given that High (37 FPS) and Ultra (35 FPS) are nearly identical at 4K, there is no meaningful reason to select Ultra over High at this resolution — the 2 FPS difference does not justify any additional visual load.

The most balanced experience across all resolutions appears to be Medium settings. At 1080p, it offers 82 FPS with a healthy min-max spread; at 1440p, it delivers 66 FPS; at 4K, it maintains 49 FPS. The Medium preset's min values — 70 at 1080p, 56 at 1440p, and 42 at 4K — all remain above the 30 FPS threshold typically considered the minimum for acceptable playability. For users who prefer higher visual fidelity, High settings at 1080p (62 FPS) or 1440p (50 FPS) provide better image quality while staying within playable ranges. Ultra settings only make sense at 1080p, where 59 FPS is still achievable, but the gain over High is marginal.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 contributes six cores and six threads, running at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boosting to 4.10 GHz. This Coffee Lake architecture processor shares 9 MB of L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. Its benchmark scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 6629 and single-core result of 935, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 5141 and single-core of 1389. These figures place the CPU at the 47th percentile among all processors.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most evident at lower resolutions where the GPU is less burdened. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 106 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra, it only manages 59 FPS. This 47 FPS gap at the same resolution indicates that while the GPU handles the increased rendering load, the CPU must also keep up with the game's simulation and scenery streaming demands. The six-thread configuration without hyper-threading may limit performance in scenes with heavy AI traffic or complex weather systems, though the measured data does not isolate these scenarios.

The CPU's nearest rivals show it is competitive with similar-generation parts: the i7-1068NG7 is 0.2% behind, the i7-10710U is 0.3% behind, and the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 trails by 0.4%. The i3-10305 leads by 0.4%. These sub-1% margins mean the i5-9400's performance is tightly clustered, and any frame rate differences in this game are more attributable to the GPU or game engine than to CPU choice. The 47th percentile ranking suggests that in CPU-heavy titles, this processor would be a mid-pack performer, but in this flight simulator, the GPU's 60th percentile ranking is the more influential component.

The 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and dual-channel DDR4 support provide adequate data throughput for the game's streaming world, though the 9 MB L3 cache is modest by modern standards. The CPU's 65 W TDP indicates efficient operation, but the six-thread limit may cause occasional hitches when the game spawns complex scenery or numerous AI aircraft. However, the measured frame rates at Medium and High presets suggest these potential hitches do not manifest as severe drops in the average FPS data.