Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is exceptionally demanding, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 confirms that this combination sits in the lower half of the performance spectrum, ranking 1533 out of 1795 tested combos. The benchmark results reveal a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card, particularly as resolution increases, but which also shows the CPU holding back performance at lower settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to provide a clear picture of what users can expect from this pairing across different resolutions and quality presets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable and steep decline in performance as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the High preset, the average frame rate drops from 45.4 FPS at 1080p to 40.5 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 4.9 FPS, and then falls further to 25.3 FPS at 4K, which is a 15.2 FPS drop from the 1440p result. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario; the GTX 1070's rendering workload increases significantly with pixel count, and its 256.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 6.463 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply insufficient to maintain higher frame rates at 4K.

The transition from 1440p to 4K is particularly punishing across all settings, with the average FPS dropping by roughly 37-38% regardless of the quality preset. For instance, the Low preset falls from 67.7 FPS at 1440p to 51.1 FPS at 4K, and the Ultra preset drops from 38.5 FPS to 24.8 FPS. This consistent relative drop indicates that the limiting factor is the GPU's raw pixel throughput rather than any specific setting. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combination, as even the Low preset, which yields 51.1 FPS, is the only setting that approaches playability, while High and Ultra fall to 25.3 and 24.8 FPS respectively, which are below a smooth threshold.

At 1080p and 1440p, the scaling is less severe, but the pattern still holds. The difference between 1080p and 1440p at High is 4.9 FPS, and at Ultra it is 5.3 FPS, showing a modest performance hit. This indicates that the GPU is still the primary bottleneck, but the system has more headroom at these resolutions. The data points to a clear conclusion: users targeting 4K will need to significantly lower settings or accept sub-30 FPS averages, while 1440p offers a better balance, and 1080p provides the most consistent experience.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for each resolution and preset allows for clear settings recommendations based on the target frame rate. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers the highest average at 79.8 FPS, followed by Medium at 65.5 FPS and High at 45.4 FPS. The Ultra preset drops to 43.8 FPS. For a smooth experience at 1080p, the Medium preset is the best option, as it provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while offering a significant visual upgrade over Low. The High preset is also viable, but the lower frame rate may be noticeable in a flight simulator where smooth panning is critical.

At 2560x1440, the performance envelope tightens. The Low preset averages 67.7 FPS, which is still above 60 FPS, but Medium drops to 50.2 FPS, and High falls to 40.5 FPS. The data suggests that the Low preset is the only one that consistently maintains a high frame rate at this resolution, while Medium is acceptable for users who are willing to trade some smoothness for visual fidelity. The High and Ultra presets, at 40.5 and 38.5 FPS, are best avoided unless the user prioritizes visuals over frame rate and can tolerate a less fluid experience.

For 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset averages 51.1 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a playable frame rate. Medium drops to 37.7 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 25.3 and 24.8 FPS respectively. The recommendation here is unambiguous: if 4K is the target, the Low preset is the only reasonable choice, and users should expect a compromised experience. The data shows that the GTX 1070 lacks the computational headroom for higher quality settings at this resolution, making 1440p Medium or 1080p High the better overall choices for balancing visual quality and performance.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is the dominant performance limiter in this system for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, with 1920 shading units and 64 ROPs, which are specifications from the Pascal architecture. The data shows that the GPU's average benchmark score is 12331, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, with score deltas of 0.7% and -1.4% respectively, indicating it is a mid-range performer.

The GPU's 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a crucial factor for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams large amounts of terrain and texture data. However, the measured FPS at 4K shows that this bandwidth is insufficient for high settings, as the average FPS drops to 25.3 at High and 24.8 at Ultra. The GPU's compute capability, rated at 6.463 TFLOPS, is also a limiting factor; the data shows that increasing settings from Low to Ultra at any resolution results in a substantial FPS penalty, such as the drop from 79.8 to 43.8 FPS at 1080p.

The GPU's VRAM capacity of 8 GB appears adequate for the tested settings, as there is no evidence of a sudden performance cliff that would indicate memory overflow. Instead, the performance scaling is gradual, suggesting that the GPU's processing units, not its memory capacity, are the primary constraint. The GPU's pixel rate of 107.7 GPixel/s and texture rate of 202.0 GTexel/s are the theoretical limits that the game's rendering engine is pushing against, and the data indicates that the GTX 1070 is a capable but not exceptional performer for this title, making it the clear bottleneck at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 offers the highest frame rates, with the Low preset averaging 79.8 FPS and Medium averaging 65.5 FPS. 1440p is also viable, but 4K results in sub-30 FPS averages on High and Ultra presets, making it unsuitable for consistent performance.

Q: How much does the Ultra preset cost in performance compared to Low?

A: At 1080p, the Ultra preset averages 43.8 FPS, which is 36.0 FPS lower than the Low preset's 79.8 FPS. At 1440p, the difference is 29.2 FPS, and at 4K, it is 26.3 FPS, showing a consistent and significant penalty for maximum quality settings.

Q: Is the GTX 1070's 8 GB VRAM sufficient for this game?

A: The data shows no evidence of a VRAM-related performance collapse at any tested setting. The gradual FPS scaling from Low to Ultra suggests that the GPU's compute and bandwidth limits are reached before its 8 GB memory capacity, indicating the VRAM is sufficient for these presets.

Q: How does this combo rank against other tested systems?

A: The combination ranks 1533 out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower portion of the performance chart. This indicates that while it can run the game, it is behind a majority of other hardware configurations in overall capability.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Medium presets?

A: At 1080p, the difference is 14.3 FPS, from 79.8 to 65.5 FPS. At 1440p, the difference is 17.5 FPS, from 67.7 to 50.2 FPS. At 4K, the difference is 13.4 FPS, from 51.1 to 37.7 FPS, showing that Medium offers a noticeable visual upgrade at a moderate cost.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the frame rate at 4K?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K. The FPS drops are consistent across all settings when moving from 1440p to 4K, which is a characteristic of a GPU-bound workload, whereas the CPU's performance is less relevant at such high pixel counts.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, with 6 cores and 6 threads. Its average benchmark score is 2305, placing it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-10305 and the Intel Xeon E-2134, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.4% respectively. This places the CPU in a mid-range position, and its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator is secondary to the GPU, but not negligible.

The data shows that at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck, but at 1080p with lower settings, the CPU's role becomes more apparent. For example, at 1080p Low, the system achieves 79.8 FPS, which is the highest measured result, and this is likely where the CPU's 4.10 GHz boost clock and 9 MB of shared L3 cache are working to keep up with the game's simulation and physics calculations. However, as settings increase, the frame rate drops more due to GPU load, indicating that the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at higher presets.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s via dual-channel DDR4 is a potential limiting factor, but the data does not show a specific scenario where this becomes a critical issue. The measured FPS values decline smoothly with resolution and settings, suggesting that the CPU is not causing any sudden stutters or frame drops. In comparison to its nearest rivals, the Core i5-9400 performs almost identically, with a delta of only 0.2% against the Core i3-10305, meaning users should expect similar CPU-bound behavior in this game. Overall, the CPU provides adequate support for the GTX 1070, but it is not the component that determines the ceiling for frame rates in this title.