Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 reveals a configuration that scales predictably across resolutions. The dataset indicates a system where the GPU is the primary driver of frame rates, though the six-core CPU still imposes a ceiling at lower resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, the combo’s standing against 1,795 other tested pairings, and the specific roles of the graphics card and processor.

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

The FPS degradation from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, pointing to a GPU-bound workload. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 88.9 FPS at 1920x1080 to 72.6 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 52.6 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 40.8% drop from 1080p to 4K, which is typical for a flight simulator that pushes pixel fill rates and memory bandwidth hard. The pattern repeats at other presets: Low settings go from 125.7 FPS at 1080p down to 92.3 FPS at 4K, a 26.6% reduction, while Medium drops from 116.4 to 70.4 FPS, a 39.5% decrease.

The scaling suggests that as resolution increases, the Radeon RX 9070’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth become the deciding factors. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is smaller than the gap between 1440p and 4K across most settings, indicating that 4K is where the GPU’s 2520 MHz boost clock and 128 ROPs reach their limit. Notably, the Ultra preset shows the least absolute difference between 1440p (69.9 FPS) and 4K (51.8 FPS), which implies that Ultra’s additional effects saturate the GPU early, making resolution less impactful than the preset itself. The data implies that at 1080p, the CPU may be holding back performance, as the jump from Medium to Low only yields a 9.3 FPS gain, whereas at 4K, the same preset change yields a 21.9 FPS gain, confirming a shift from CPU to GPU limitation.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 combination ranks 636th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 64.6th percentile, meaning it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all tested pairings, but it is far from the top tier. The ranking is surprisingly modest given the GPU’s individual performance percentile of 79, which suggests that the CPU is dragging down the overall result. The i5-9400 sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 2305 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300, deltaPct 0.2) and the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299, deltaPct 0.2).

This near-parity with lower-tier chips in CPU benchmarks explains why the combo rank is not higher. The GPU, which ranks near the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (deltaPct 0.3) and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (deltaPct 0.8) in average score, is capable of far better results, but the 6-thread processor restricts the system’s ability to feed it data in a simulation-heavy title like this one. The data shows that while the RX 9070 alone would likely place in the top 20% of GPUs, the combined system falls to the 35th percentile of combos, a clear indictment of the CPU’s age. For comparison, the i5-9400’s nearest rival, the Intel Xeon E-2134, scores 2295 (deltaPct 0.4), and the i7-8809G scores 2319 (deltaPct -0.6), all within a tight 1% band, reinforcing that this CPU is a mid-pack performer.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is the star of this pairing, and its specifications align with the measured FPS. The GPU boasts 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for Microsoft Flight Simulator’s vast textures and streaming world. The boost clock of 2520 MHz and game clock of 2070 MHz are high for RDNA 4.0 architecture, and the 3584 shading units provide substantial compute power, reflected in its 36.13 TFLOPS FP32 performance. The GPU’s average benchmark score of 34780 places it at the 79th percentile, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA A2 (34866, deltaPct -0.2) and AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34541, deltaPct 0.7) showing that it punches above its weight class.

In practice, the GPU’s 128 ROPs and 564.5 GTexel/s texture rate are what drive the 4K results. At Ultra settings, the RX 9070 manages 51.8 FPS at 4K, which is just above the 50 FPS threshold many consider playable, but it drops to 52.6 FPS at High, showing that Ultra and High are nearly identical at this resolution. The 16 GB VRAM is not a limiting factor here, as even at 4K Ultra, the game does not appear to exceed the memory capacity, given the consistent frame rates. The GPU’s 220 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it is a power-hungry part, but the data does not show thermal throttling, as the 4K Low result of 92.3 FPS indicates headroom remains. The RX 9070’s performance at 1440p is particularly strong, with 122.2 FPS at Low and 97 FPS at Medium, indicating that this resolution is the sweet spot for the GPU’s capabilities.

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

The measured data provides a clear picture of performance across all settings. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 125.7 at Low to 86.8 at Ultra, with High at 88.9 and Medium at 116.4. The 1080p results show a large gap between Low and Medium (9.3 FPS), but a negligible difference between High and Ultra (2.1 FPS), suggesting that the CPU is the bottleneck at these settings. Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates are 122.2 FPS at Low, 97 FPS at Medium, 72.6 FPS at High, and 69.9 FPS at Ultra. The 1440p data reveals a more linear scaling, with a 24.7 FPS drop from Low to Ultra, which indicates the GPU is becoming more involved.

At 3840x2160, the results are 92.3 FPS at Low, 70.4 FPS at Medium, 52.6 FPS at High, and 51.8 FPS at Ultra. The 4K numbers show a significant drop from Medium to High (17.8 FPS), but High and Ultra are nearly identical (0.8 FPS difference), which is a strong signal that the game’s Ultra preset adds effects that do not impact this GPU’s performance at 4K. Across all resolutions, Low settings provide the highest frame rates, but the jump from Low to Medium is smaller at 1080p (9.3 FPS) than at 4K (21.9 FPS), confirming that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The data also shows that at 1080p, the CPU caps performance; the difference between Low and Ultra is only 38.9 FPS, whereas at 4K, it is 40.5 FPS, a similar absolute gap despite the resolution difference.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo to maintain high frame rates?

A: Based on the data, 2560x1440 provides the best balance, with 122.2 FPS at Low and 97 FPS at Medium settings. At 1920x1080, the CPU limits performance, while at 3840x2160, the GPU struggles to exceed 92.3 FPS even at Low.

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 9070’s average benchmark score is 34780, which is 0.2% lower than the NVIDIA A2 (34866) and 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (34677). It is also 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34541) and 0.8% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (34511).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the data suggests the CPU is the limiting factor. The FPS difference between Low (125.7) and Medium (116.4) is only 9.3 FPS, and between High (88.9) and Ultra (86.8) is just 2.1 FPS, indicating the i5-9400 cannot fully utilize the GPU’s potential.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested configurations?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 combo ranks 636th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 64.6th percentile, outperforming the majority of tested systems.

Q: How does the i5-9400’s CPU benchmark score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300) and 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299). It is 0.4% higher than the Intel Xeon E-2134 (2295) and 0.6% lower than the Intel Core i7-8809G (2319).

Q: Does the GPU’s 16 GB VRAM appear sufficient for 4K Ultra settings?

A: The data shows that at 3840x2160 Ultra, the combo achieves 51.8 FPS, which is close to the High preset’s 52.6 FPS. The consistent frame rates suggest that the 16 GB VRAM is not a bottleneck, as the GPU can handle the memory load without significant performance degradation.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For players prioritizing smooth frame rates, the Low preset at 2560x1440 delivers the highest measured performance at 122.2 FPS, which is ideal for competitive or fast-paced flying. However, for a balanced visual experience, Medium at 2560x1440 provides 97 FPS, which is a substantial improvement over High (72.6 FPS) at the same resolution, without the drastic visual downgrade of Low. At 1920x1080, Medium offers 116.4 FPS, which is nearly as fast as Low (125.7 FPS) and likely looks far better, making it the best choice for 1080p users.

At 4K, the data suggests that High (52.6 FPS) and Ultra (51.8 FPS) are nearly identical, so there is no reason to choose Ultra over High, as the 0.8 FPS difference does not justify any extra visual strain. If 4K is the target, Medium at 70.4 FPS is the most playable option, as it offers a 17.8 FPS improvement over High. The data indicates that the Ultra preset is poorly optimized for this combo at any resolution; at 1440p, Ultra (69.9 FPS) is only 2.7 FPS faster than High at 4K (52.6 FPS), showing diminishing returns. The best overall experience is Medium at 1440p, which balances the GPU’s strengths with the CPU’s limitations, yielding 97 FPS without sacrificing too much visual fidelity.

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It has 9 MB of shared L3 cache and a TDP of 65 W, supporting DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode. In benchmark tests, it scores 7969 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1125 in single-core, placing it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. These numbers are modest by modern standards, and the data shows that in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is a limiting factor at 1080p, where frame rates are capped.

The CPU’s performance is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with a 0.2% difference from the Intel Core i3-10305 and a 0.6% difference from the Intel Core i7-8809G. This indicates that the i5-9400 is not a standout performer, and its 6 threads are insufficient for the game’s simulation logic, which often scales with more cores. At 1080p Low, the 125.7 FPS result suggests the CPU is working hard, but the small gap to Medium (116.4 FPS) implies that the processor cannot push beyond a certain threshold, even when the GPU has headroom. At 4K, the CPU’s role diminishes, as the GPU becomes the bottleneck, but the overall combo rank of 636 out of 1795 reflects that the CPU holds the system back from achieving higher placements. The 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.10 GHz boost are adequate for single-threaded tasks, but the lack of hyper-threading means the 6 threads are all the CPU can offer, which is a clear disadvantage in a game that can utilize more.