Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-9400 pairs six physical cores with six threads, a 2.90 GHz base clock, and a 4.10 GHz boost clock, all on a 14 nm Coffee Lake architecture. This configuration is a fixed-clock part without an unlocked multiplier, which limits its flexibility in simulation-heavy titles. The CPU’s benchmark percentile sits at 50 against all processors, indicating it is squarely mid-pack in overall compute capability. In the broader synthetic picture, the i5-9400’s average benchmark score of 2305 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals; the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2300 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i3-1125G4 scores 2299 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Xeon E-2134 scores 2295 (0.4% ahead). Only the Intel Core i7-8809G edges it out with a score of 2319, a 0.6% margin. For a flight simulator that relies heavily on single-threaded physics and scenery loading, the i5-9400’s single-core results — a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1125 and an R20 single-core score of 472 — are more relevant than its multi-core throughput. The 9 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support at 42.7 GB/s provide adequate bandwidth for the CPU’s role, but the data indicates this processor is not a standout performer. Its 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1151 interface mark it as a mainstream part, and the benchmark results confirm that in this game’s context, the CPU is a competent but unremarkable foundation, likely to keep pace with the graphics card only at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck.

CPU Role

The i5-9400’s six cores and six threads are sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator’s demand for continuous physics calculations and terrain data processing. The 4.10 GHz boost clock is the key asset here; it allows the CPU to respond to the single-threaded demands of flight simulation, where a single core often dictates frame pacing. The benchmark data shows this CPU performs at the 50th percentile overall, but its nearest rivals are all within a 0.6% margin of its average score, meaning there is no meaningful separation between the i5-9400 and its direct competitors. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 indicates that when all six threads are engaged, the chip can handle background tasks, but the game’s primary thread will rely on that boost frequency. With a 2.90 GHz base clock, sustained loads that exceed the boost duration could cause dips, but the measured FPS in this game suggests the CPU holds its ground. The 65 W TDP and lack of overclocking support mean this is a fixed-performance part, and the data shows it neither boosts nor drags down the combo in a dramatic fashion. In the context of this game, the CPU is a steady, mid-tier contributor, providing enough single-core muscle to avoid becoming a severe liability at lower settings, though it lacks the headroom of higher-core-count parts.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT is the dominant component in this pairing, built on the 5 nm RDNA 3.0 architecture with 3,456 shading units and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s boost clock of 2544 MHz and game clock of 2171 MHz are high, and the 96 ROPs handle pixel output at a rate of 244.2 GPixel/s. This GPU sits at the 73rd percentile against all GPUs, a strong position, and its average benchmark score of 30097 puts it in a virtual tie with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, which scores 30109 with a 0.0% delta. The RX 7700 XT is also just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 570 (30158) and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M60 (29969). For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 12 GB VRAM is a critical asset, as the game streams high-resolution textures for terrain and aircraft; the 432.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures those textures load without stutter. The GPU’s FP32 throughput of 35.17 TFLOPS handles the shading workload, and the 54 RT cores provide ray tracing capability, though the game’s CPU-bound nature often limits the GPU’s full utilization. The launch MSRP for this card is 449 USD, and its active production status means it is a current-generation option. The performance data shows this GPU is the engine of the combo, capable of pushing high frame rates when the CPU allows it, but the measured FPS across resolutions reveals where the balance shifts.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the i5-9400 and RX 7700 XT ranks 811th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the 45th percentile of all combos, which is a mid-pack result given the GPU’s strong individual standing. The disconnect between the GPU’s 73rd percentile rank and the combo’s 45th percentile position is telling; it suggests that the CPU is holding the combo back from reaching the heights the GPU could achieve on its own. In a game where the CPU handles flight dynamics and the GPU renders the world, this rank indicates that the i5-9400 is not fully releasing the RX 7700 XT’s potential. The combo rank is a holistic measure, and the data shows that while the GPU is a top-tier component, the pairing with a mid-tier CPU from 2018 creates a bottleneck. Compared to other tested combos, this setup is neither exceptional nor poor; it lands in the middle of the pack, which aligns with the CPU’s 50th percentile and the GPU’s 73rd percentile averaging out. The rank of 811 out of 1795 suggests that many other combos with stronger CPUs and similar GPUs would outperform this pairing, but it also indicates that the RX 7700 XT prevents the combo from falling into the lower quartile.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates, starting with 130.2 FPS on Low settings. Moving up, Medium settings yield 104.4 FPS, High settings drop to 78.1 FPS, and Ultra settings hold at 78.8 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear scaling pattern: the jump from Low to Medium is a 25.8 FPS drop, while the jump from Medium to High is a 26.3 FPS drop, but the High to Ultra transition is nearly flat at 0.7 FPS. This suggests that at 1080p, the CPU begins to limit the frame rate at High and Ultra settings, as the GPU is capable of more but the processor cannot feed it fast enough. At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts: Low settings produce 112.2 FPS, Medium produces 86.5 FPS, High produces 62 FPS, and Ultra produces 62.4 FPS. The 1440p results show a similar flat line between High and Ultra, but the overall numbers are lower than 1080p, indicating the GPU is now doing more work. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 25.7 FPS, and the Medium to High gap is 24.5 FPS, showing that the GPU is becoming the primary performer. At 3840x2160, the results are 77.8 FPS on Low, 61.7 FPS on Medium, 45.6 FPS on High, and 43.6 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results show the GPU fully engaged, with the High to Ultra gap shrinking to just 2 FPS, revealing that the GPU is nearing its limit at the highest settings. The data indicates that at 1080p, the CPU holds the combo back above Medium, while at 4K, the GPU takes over as the limiting factor.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, but the pattern reveals the limiting component. At Low settings, the combo goes from 130.2 FPS at 1080p to 112.2 FPS at 1440p, a 13.8% drop, and then to 77.8 FPS at 4K, a 30.7% drop from 1440p. This shows that at Low settings, the CPU is the primary limiter at 1080p, because the 4K result of 77.8 FPS is still high, indicating the GPU has headroom. At High settings, the progression is 78.1 FPS at 1080p, 62 FPS at 1440p, and 45.6 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 20.6%, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 26.5%, showing that the GPU is increasingly taxed as resolution rises. The Ultra settings tell a similar story: 78.8 FPS at 1080p, 62.4 FPS at 1440p, and 43.6 FPS at 4K. The fact that 1080p Ultra (78.8 FPS) is nearly identical to 1080p High (78.1 FPS) is a strong indicator of a CPU bottleneck at 1080p; the GPU is not the constraint, so raising settings does not reduce frame rate. However, at 4K, the Ultra setting (43.6 FPS) is lower than High (45.6 FPS), showing the GPU is now the limiting factor. The scaling data confirms that this combo is CPU-bound at 1080p and GPU-bound at 4K, with the crossover occurring around 1440p where both components share the load. This is a classic balance point for a mid-tier CPU with a high-end GPU, and the measured FPS shows that users must choose between high frame rates at lower resolutions or visual fidelity at 4K with frame rates in the mid-40s.