Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with Intel Core i5-9400 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060

This combination of a six-core Intel Core i5-9400 and the Turing-based RTX 2060 delivers a playable but demanding experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a system that handles 1080p well, struggles at 4K, and sits firmly in the lower half of tested hardware combinations for this title. The RTX 2060 carries most of the load, while the i5-9400’s six threads prove sufficient at lower resolutions but become a secondary constraint as pixel count rises.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS drop from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is steep across all settings, indicating a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. At High settings, average FPS falls from 52.8 at 1080p to 45.6 at 1440p, then plummets to 29.3 at 4K — a 44.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The Ultra preset tells a similar story: 53.5 FPS at 1080p, 41.6 at 1440p, and 31.3 at 4K, a 41.5% drop. Low settings show the most dramatic scaling, going from 92.3 at 1080p to 73.2 at 1440p and finally 50.8 at 4K — a 45% loss. Medium settings follow the same pattern: 69.1 at 1080p, 54.5 at 1440p, 39.9 at 4K.

The consistent ~40-45% performance penalty when moving from 1080p to 4K across all presets strongly suggests the RTX 2060 is the limiting component at higher resolutions. The GPU’s 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for the texture and shading demands of 4K in this simulator. At 1080p, the scaling between Low and Ultra is more moderate, with the 92.3 FPS Low figure showing headroom that indicates the CPU can keep up when the GPU is less stressed. The 1440p numbers sit between these extremes, with High at 45.6 FPS being borderline playable and Low at 73.2 providing a smoother experience.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU-GPU pairing ranks 1494 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 17% of all tested combos. That ranking reflects the modest standing of both components individually. The Core i5-9400 sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2305. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2300 (0.2% slower) and the Intel Xeon E-2134 at 2295 (0.4% slower), while the Intel Core i7-8809G edges ahead at 2319 (0.6% faster). The i5-9400’s Cinebench results — 7969 in R23 multi-core and 1125 in R23 single-core — show a capable but not exceptional processor.

The RTX 2060 fares slightly better, ranking at the 58th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 16074. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 7600S at 15996 (0.5% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15786 (1.8% faster), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and Pro 5700 both score 16351 (1.7% slower). The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 14111 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1242 indicate mid-range performance. When combined, these two components land in the lower quartile of Flight Simulator combos, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing 4K is largely unplayable and 1440p requires settings compromises.

GPU Role

The RTX 2060’s specifications directly explain the observed performance ceiling. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, which becomes a bottleneck at 4K where texture data exceeds what the memory subsystem can efficiently feed. The GPU’s 1920 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 48 ROPs process pixels at a theoretical 80.64 GPixel/s, but the measured 4K results show this is insufficient for Flight Simulator’s dense scenery rendering. The boost clock of 1680 MHz and base clock of 1365 MHz are typical for the Turing architecture, and the 12 nm process node with 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die explains the 160 W TDP.

The RTX 2060’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database — the RX 7600S and Radeon Pro W5500 — score within 2% of it, yet the measured Flight Simulator results show clear differences between settings presets. At 1080p Ultra, the GPU produces 53.5 FPS, which is just above the 50 FPS threshold many consider minimum for smooth flight simulation. The fact that Low settings at 4K (50.8 FPS) nearly match High settings at 1080p (52.8 FPS) reveals that the GPU’s raw throughput scales predictably with resolution, but the memory bandwidth becomes the limiting factor at 4K regardless of preset. The 30 RT cores and 240 tensor cores present on this chip do not appear to provide measurable benefit in this title, as the FPS deltas between presets follow a linear pattern typical of rasterization-bound workloads.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to Medium settings at 1440p as the sweet spot for this combination. At 54.5 FPS, Medium 1440p offers a 33% improvement over High at the same resolution (45.6 FPS) while still maintaining visual fidelity above Low. For 1080p users, Medium at 69.1 FPS provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target, while High at 52.8 FPS is acceptable for those prioritizing visuals. Ultra at 1080p (53.5 FPS) offers no meaningful advantage over High and actually scores slightly lower, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset.

At 4K, no preset delivers a consistently smooth experience. The best option is Low at 50.8 FPS, which barely touches playability, while Medium drops to 39.9 FPS and High falls to 29.3 FPS. For users with a 4K display, the data suggests either accepting Low settings or lowering the resolution to 1440p. The 1440p Low setting at 73.2 FPS is the highest frame rate this combo achieves at that resolution, making it the recommended fallback for competitive smoothness. The Ultra preset should be avoided at all resolutions above 1080p, as it provides only 41.6 FPS at 1440p and 31.3 FPS at 4K — both below comfortable playability thresholds.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range is usable. Low settings produce 92.3 FPS average, Medium delivers 69.1 FPS, High achieves 52.8 FPS, and Ultra reaches 53.5 FPS. The near-identical High and Ultra scores indicate that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are not the primary bottleneck at this resolution. Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 73.2 FPS on Low, 54.5 FPS on Medium, 45.6 FPS on High, and 41.6 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium narrows from 23.2 FPS at 1080p to 18.7 FPS at 1440p, while the High-to-Ultra gap remains small at 4.0 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results reveal the hardware’s limits. Low settings average 50.8 FPS, Medium drops to 39.9 FPS, High falls to 29.3 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 31.3 FPS. Notably, Ultra scores slightly higher than High at 4K (31.3 vs 29.3), a statistical anomaly likely explained by differing workload characteristics rather than a genuine performance inversion. The progression from 1080p to 4K shows consistent degradation: Low loses 41.5 FPS, Medium loses 29.2 FPS, High loses 23.5 FPS, and Ultra loses 22.2 FPS. This pattern indicates that lower presets scale more poorly with resolution increases, as they rely more heavily on raw pixel throughput rather than shading complexity.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Only at Low settings, which averages 50.8 FPS. Medium drops to 39.9 FPS, High to 29.3 FPS, and Ultra to 31.3 FPS — none of which provide a smooth experience.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p?

A: Medium at 69.1 FPS offers the best balance, providing a 16.3 FPS improvement over High (52.8 FPS) with moderate visual compromise. Low at 92.3 FPS is available for maximum smoothness.

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

A: It ranks 1494 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 17% of all tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is the RTX 2060 or the i5-9400 the bottleneck at 1440p?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The 1440p High score of 45.6 FPS versus 1080p High at 52.8 FPS shows only a 13.6% drop, while 4K High falls 44.5% from 1080p — indicating the GPU’s memory bandwidth limits higher resolutions.

Q: What is the performance difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p, Ultra (53.5 FPS) is 1.3% faster than High (52.8 FPS). At 1440p, High (45.6 FPS) beats Ultra (41.6 FPS) by 8.8%. At 4K, Ultra (31.3 FPS) edges out High (29.3 FPS) by 6.4%. The differences are small enough that High is generally preferable.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2060 scores 16074 average, with the AMD Radeon RX 7600S at 15996 (0.5% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15786 (1.8% faster). The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M and Pro 5700 both score 16351 (1.7% slower).