Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The measured frame rates for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER combination reveal a clear pattern of scaling as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the combo delivers 109.2 FPS, which drops to 89.8 FPS at 1440p Low and further to 66.3 FPS at 4K Low. That represents a 39.3% reduction from 1080p to 4K at the lowest settings. At Medium settings, the drop is from 87.7 FPS at 1080p to 67.1 FPS at 1440p, then to 52.5 FPS at 4K — a 40.1% decline. High settings show 63.1 FPS at 1080p, 49.3 FPS at 1440p, and 39.7 FPS at 4K, a 37.1% reduction. Ultra settings follow suit: 61.2 FPS at 1080p, 49.8 FPS at 1440p, and 37.8 FPS at 4K, a 38.2% drop.

The consistency of these percentage declines across all four settings presets is telling. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, the frame rate penalty from increasing resolution would be smaller, because the CPU workload stays relatively constant while the GPU takes on more pixel processing. Instead, the data shows a steady, predictable degradation that scales with pixel count. This points to the GPU as the limiting component at higher resolutions. The RTX 2070 SUPER, with its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256-bit bus, is being pushed progressively harder as resolution climbs. The fact that even at Low settings, 4K only reaches 66.3 FPS — while 1080p Low hits 109.2 FPS — indicates that raw pixel throughput, not game logic or draw calls, is what caps performance at 4K.

However, there is a nuance. At 1080p, the gap between Low (109.2 FPS) and Ultra (61.2 FPS) is 48 FPS, whereas at 4K, the gap between Low (66.3 FPS) and Ultra (37.8 FPS) is only 28.5 FPS. This compression of the settings-based spread at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is increasingly saturated, leaving less headroom for settings to matter. At 1080p, the simulation engine’s CPU demands can still be met, allowing the GPU to flex its muscles with higher settings. At 4K, the GPU is so busy that even dropping to Low cannot double the frame rate the way it does at 1080p. The data implies that for players targeting 4K, the RTX 2070 SUPER is the wall; for 1080p, the i5-9400’s six threads may start to become relevant in complex scenes, though the measured FPS remains high.

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

The Intel Core i5-9400 brings six cores and six threads to the table, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. It is built on the Coffee Lake architecture with a 14 nm process node, and its 9 MB of shared L3 cache is typical for this generation. The CPU’s benchmark scores place it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2305. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300, 0.2% slower) and the Intel Core i7-8809G (2319, 0.6% faster), indicating that the i5-9400 sits in a dense performance cluster where small differences separate chips.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the simulation logic, terrain streaming, and AI traffic, which can be demanding. The measured FPS at 1080p Low (109.2 FPS) shows that the six threads are sufficient to keep the frame rate well above 60 FPS when the GPU is not overwhelmed. But the data also shows that at 1080p Ultra, the frame rate drops to 61.2 FPS — a 44% reduction from Low. This drop is larger than what would be expected from purely GPU-bound rendering, suggesting that the CPU’s six threads (without Hyper-Threading) may struggle to feed the GPU with enough draw calls and terrain data at higher settings. The 4.10 GHz boost clock helps, but the lack of additional threads could be a limiting factor in dense urban areas or with heavy weather effects, though the average FPS data does not isolate those scenarios.

Interestingly, the CPU’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 7969 and single-core score of 1125 indicate a solid mid-range performer. The single-core score is particularly relevant for flight simulators, which often rely on a few heavily threaded tasks. The 0.2% delta to the Core i3-10305 suggests that players upgrading from that chip would see negligible CPU-bound differences in this game. The data does not show a scenario where the CPU becomes the outright bottleneck at 1080p Low, since 109.2 FPS is far beyond what most displays can refresh. But at 1080p Ultra, the combination of higher physics detail and more complex scenery likely taxes the six threads, resulting in the 61.2 FPS figure. This is still playable, but it indicates that the CPU is contributing to the performance ceiling, not just the GPU.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the more prominent component in this pairing. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The GPU’s base clock is 1605 MHz with a boost clock of 1770 MHz, and it packs 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Its 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores provide ray tracing and DLSS capabilities, though the measured FPS data does not specify whether those features were enabled. The GPU sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 22206. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 (22307, 0.5% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (21670, 2.5% slower), showing that the 2070 SUPER holds a modest edge over that last competitor.

The GPU’s role in this game is evident from the resolution scaling data. At 1080p Low, the GPU delivers 109.2 FPS, but at 4K Low, that drops to 66.3 FPS. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p even at Ultra settings, but the data shows that 4K Ultra (37.8 FPS) is barely above the threshold for playable performance. The memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s is likely a factor at 4K, where the GPU must stream more texture data per frame. The 14 Gbps effective memory speed and 1750 MHz memory clock are standard for this class, but the flight simulator’s vast terrain textures can quickly consume bandwidth.

The 0.5% delta to the RTX A400 and the 2.5% delta to the RX 5700 indicate that the 2070 SUPER is well-positioned relative to its peers, but the measured FPS in this game shows it is not a 4K powerhouse. The gap between 1080p Ultra (61.2 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (49.8 FPS) is 11.4 FPS, while the gap between 1440p Ultra and 4K Ultra (37.8 FPS) is 12 FPS. This near-linear decline suggests that the GPU’s raw compute (9.062 TFLOPS FP32) and memory subsystem are the limiting factors as resolution rises. The data implies that players with this GPU should target 1440p as the sweet spot for high settings, where the frame rate remains above 49 FPS even at Ultra.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves at 1080p?

A: The highest measured average FPS at 1080p is 109.2 FPS, achieved with Low settings. Medium settings yield 87.7 FPS, High yields 63.1 FPS, and Ultra yields 61.2 FPS.

Q: Does the RTX 2070 SUPER maintain 60 FPS at 4K in this game?

A: No. The only 4K setting that exceeds 60 FPS is Low, at 66.3 FPS. Medium (52.5 FPS), High (39.7 FPS), and Ultra (37.8 FPS) all fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the i5-9400 compare to its nearest CPU rival in terms of average benchmark score?

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

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 1440p at High settings?

A: At High settings, the frame rate drops from 63.1 FPS at 1080p to 49.3 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 13.8 FPS or approximately 21.9%.

Q: Is the RTX 2070 SUPER faster or slower than the Radeon RX 5700 in average GPU benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2070 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 22206, which is 2.5% higher than the Radeon RX 5700’s score of 21670.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1098 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the overall distribution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the best experience depends on the target resolution. At 1080p, Ultra settings deliver 61.2 FPS, which is playable for most users, but High (63.1 FPS) offers nearly identical performance with a slight margin. However, the data shows that Medium (87.7 FPS) provides a substantial 24.6 FPS uplift over Ultra while still looking far better than Low (109.2 FPS). For players who prioritize smoothness over maximum visual fidelity, Medium at 1080p is the recommended preset, as it keeps frame rates well above 60 FPS while retaining most of the game’s visual richness.

At 1440p, the situation changes. Ultra (49.8 FPS) and High (49.3 FPS) are nearly identical, both hovering just below 50 FPS. Medium (67.1 FPS) is the clear winner for a 60 FPS target, offering a 34.7% improvement over Ultra. Low (89.8 FPS) is overkill for most displays but demonstrates the GPU’s headroom. For 1440p users, Medium is the recommended setting, as it balances visual quality with a frame rate that is 7.1 FPS above the 60 FPS mark.

At 4K, the options are limited. Ultra (37.8 FPS) and High (39.7 FPS) are both below 40 FPS, which is likely too choppy for most flight sim enthusiasts. Medium (52.5 FPS) is borderline, but Low (66.3 FPS) is the only preset that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. Given that flight simulators benefit from smooth frame rates for precise control, Low at 4K is the only recommended preset, as it sacrifices visual fidelity but maintains playability. Alternatively, players could drop to 1440p Medium for a better balance. The data shows no setting at 4K that combines high visual quality with a 60 FPS frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 109.2 FPS, Medium produces 87.7 FPS, High produces 63.1 FPS, and Ultra produces 61.2 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 48 FPS, with the most significant single drop occurring between Medium and High (24.6 FPS). This suggests that the High preset introduces a substantial increase in GPU workload, likely from more detailed terrain textures and lighting effects.

At 2560x1440, the values are: Low at 89.8 FPS, Medium at 67.1 FPS, High at 49.3 FPS, and Ultra at 49.8 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra (49.8 FPS) is slightly faster than High (49.3 FPS) in this measurement, which is an anomaly that may be due to optimization quirks in the game engine. The drop from Medium to High is 17.8 FPS, while the drop from Low to Medium is 22.7 FPS, indicating that each settings tier adds a similar computational cost.

At 3840x2160, the values are: Low at 66.3 FPS, Medium at 52.5 FPS, High at 39.7 FPS, and Ultra at 37.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 13.8 FPS, between Medium and High is 12.8 FPS, and between High and Ultra is only 1.9 FPS. This compression at the top end suggests that Ultra offers minimal visual benefit over High at 4K while costing a small frame rate penalty. Across all resolutions, the trend is consistent: Low settings always provide the highest FPS, and the incremental cost of each settings tier diminishes as resolution increases.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER combination ranks 1098 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the lower third of the distribution, which is notable given the individual components’ percentiles. The CPU is at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, and the GPU is at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, but their combined rank suggests that the game is particularly demanding on one or both components.

The rank implies that many other combos — likely those with newer CPUs or higher-tier GPUs — achieve better frame rates in this specific title. The data shows that the combo struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p High (49.3 FPS) and 4K Medium (52.5 FPS), which may be why it ranks lower than the individual component percentiles might suggest. The CPU’s six threads without Hyper-Threading could be a hindrance in a game that benefits from additional processing headroom for AI and physics, while the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate but not exceptional for the game’s high-resolution texture demands.

Relative to the nearest rivals, the i5-9400’s 0.2% edge over the Core i3-10305 and the RTX 2070 SUPER’s 2.5% edge over the RX 5700 suggest that this combo is competitive with similar mid-range pairings. However, the rank of 1098 out of 1795 indicates that the majority of tested combos outperform it. The 613 combos ranked below this one likely feature older or lower-tier hardware, while the 1097 combos above it benefit from more powerful CPUs like higher-core-count parts, or GPUs with more VRAM and bandwidth. The data implies that this combo is best suited for 1080p gaming with Medium to High settings, where it can deliver smooth frame rates, but it is not designed to push 4K Ultra without significant compromises.