Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-9400 with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a system that is strictly limited by its graphics card at higher resolutions. The benchmark data shows a clear pattern: the combination ranks 1595th out of 1795 tested configurations, placing it in the lower percentile of systems, which indicates that while capable of playable frame rates, it is not designed for maximum visual fidelity at 4K. The data reveals a system that can handle 1080p gaming comfortably across all presets, but which struggles to maintain fluid motion at 4K Ultra settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data demonstrates a significant and predictable performance drop as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the Low preset, the average frame rate falls from 76.7 FPS at 1080p to 64 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 45.5 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40.7% decrease in performance from 1080p to 4K, which is a substantial hit but still leaves the game playable at the lowest settings. However, the scaling becomes more punishing at higher presets; moving from High at 1080p (45.6 FPS) to High at 4K (25.2 FPS) results in a 44.7% performance loss, pushing the experience below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

This scaling pattern strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at 4K and 1440p. The GTX 1660 SUPER, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit memory bus, simply does not have the raw fill rate or memory bandwidth to feed the pixel count demanded by 4K resolution, especially with High or Ultra settings. The fact that the drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is proportionally smaller than at High settings suggests that the CPU is still able to keep up with the game's simulation logic, but the GPU's rendering workload becomes the bottleneck as resolution and detail increase. The data shows that the system is most balanced at 1920x1080, where the i5-9400 can provide enough data for the GPU to render frames efficiently.

CPU Role

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. In a flight simulator, which often relies heavily on single-threaded performance for complex physics and AI calculations, this processor's capabilities are relevant. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1125 points and multi-core score of 7969 points place it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, indicating a mid-range performance level. The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this pairing, as the frame rates scale significantly with resolution changes, a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario.

The processor's 9 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth are sufficient to prevent major stuttering, but the i5-9400's lack of hyper-threading may become a factor in complex scenarios with heavy AI traffic. However, based on the measured FPS, the CPU appears to be delivering acceptable performance, as even at 1080p Low settings, the frame rate reaches 76.7 FPS, which is a high enough value to suggest the CPU is not holding the GPU back at that resolution. At 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 25.6 FPS, but this is more attributable to the GPU's inability to process the high-resolution textures and effects than to a CPU limitation. The processor's nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-10305, scores 0.2% higher in average benchmarks, confirming that the i5-9400 is a solid, if not exceptional, performer in its class.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play this game with this hardware?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the optimal resolution, as all presets produce average frame rates above 43.9 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset (64 FPS) and Medium preset (48.3 FPS) are comfortably playable, while 3840x2160 is only playable at Low settings (45.5 FPS).

Q: Is the GTX 1660 SUPER a bottleneck for the i5-9400?

A: Yes, the benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the limiting factor at higher resolutions. The frame rate drops significantly when moving from 1080p to 4K, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck, especially considering the CPU's mid-range benchmark scores.

Q: Can this system run the game at Ultra settings?

A: It can run Ultra settings, but only at 1080p with an average of 43.9 FPS. At 1440p, Ultra drops to 36.5 FPS, and at 4K, it falls to 25.6 FPS, which is not a smooth experience.

Q: How does the i5-9400 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 and 0.4% higher than the Intel Xeon E-2134. It is 0.6% slower than the Intel Core i7-8809G.

Q: Is 6 GB of VRAM enough for this game?

A: At 1080p and 1440p, the 6 GB of VRAM appears sufficient based on the measured frame rates. However, at 4K, the performance drops dramatically, suggesting the memory capacity and bandwidth are insufficient for high-detail textures at that resolution.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The average frame rate drops from 76.7 FPS at Low to 43.9 FPS at Ultra, a decrease of 32.8 FPS. This shows that the Ultra preset demands significantly more from the GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1595th out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations, which is a low standing that reflects the hardware's age and mid-range positioning. The data shows that this system is not competitive with higher-end builds that feature more powerful GPUs and CPUs, and its rank is indicative of the performance limitations seen in the measured FPS data. For context, the GPU alone sits in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is in the 50th percentile, but their combined performance in this specific game places them much lower due to the extreme demands of the title.

This low rank is not surprising given that the GTX 1660 SUPER is an end-of-life product with a successor in the GeForce 20 series. The system is at the edge of playability, and the benchmark results show that it is best suited for 1080p gaming with medium to high settings. The rank of 1595 out of 1795 is a clear verdict that this hardware combination is a legacy setup that will require significant settings reductions to achieve playable frame rates at higher resolutions.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture and features 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Its boost clock of 1785 MHz and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provide a memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The GPU's Passmark G3D score of 12699 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1278 place it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, showing it is a competent mid-range card. However, its performance in this game is directly correlated with the resolution and settings, as the data reveals.

At 1080p, the GTX 1660 SUPER handles all presets well, with a peak of 76.7 FPS at Low and a minimum of 43.9 FPS at Ultra. This shows the card has enough raw power for full HD gaming. The situation changes at 1440p, where the card struggles to maintain 60 FPS on Low (64 FPS) but falls to 36.5 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, the card is clearly out of its depth, with only the Low preset (45.5 FPS) achieving a playable frame rate; High and Ultra settings drop to 25.2 FPS and 25.6 FPS, respectively. The GPU's 6 GB of VRAM is a likely contributor to this 4K failure, as the high-resolution textures exceed its capacity, causing performance to plummet. The nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, score 0.7% higher in average benchmarks, confirming the GTX 1660 SUPER's position in the lower-mid range of graphics cards.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the hardware's capabilities across all settings. At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 76.7 FPS on Low, 58 FPS on Medium, 45.6 FPS on High, and 43.9 FPS on Ultra. This shows a clear progression of performance loss as visual fidelity increases, with the gap between Low and Ultra being 32.8 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages are 64 FPS on Low, 48.3 FPS on Medium, 33.7 FPS on High, and 36.5 FPS on Ultra. Interestingly, the Ultra preset at 1440p performs slightly better than High, which could indicate a variance in the test scenario, but the general trend is a significant drop from the 1080p results.

At the demanding 3840x2160 resolution, the system produces 45.5 FPS on Low, 35.2 FPS on Medium, 25.2 FPS on High, and 25.6 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results are consistently below 60 FPS, and only the Low preset approaches a playable 45.5 FPS. The data shows a clear pattern: the hardware is capable of smooth performance at 1080p, playable at 1440p with lower settings, and mostly unplayable at 4K with high settings. The difference between 1080p Low (76.7 FPS) and 4K Ultra (25.6 FPS) is a 51.1 FPS drop, which is an enormous performance penalty that highlights the GPU's limitations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware is achieved at 1920x1080 with Medium or High settings. The Medium preset provides an average of 58 FPS, which is a good balance between visual quality and smoothness. The High preset at 45.6 FPS is also viable, but it dips below the 60 FPS threshold. For users who prioritize frame rate over visuals, the Low preset at 1080p delivers 76.7 FPS, which is ideal for a smooth simulation experience. At 2560x1440, the Medium preset is the best choice, offering 48.3 FPS, but users must accept a compromise in visual detail. The Low preset at 1440p is also a good option for maintaining 64 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the data strongly recommends the Low preset, which yields 45.5 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K drops to 35.2 FPS, which is a noticeable decline in smoothness. High and Ultra presets at 4K are not recommended, as they produce frame rates in the mid-20s, which is too low for a playable flight simulator experience. The verdict from the data is clear: this system should be configured for 1080p gaming with medium to high settings, or 1440p with low to medium settings. Pushing to 4K is only viable on the lowest settings, and even then, the experience is marginal.