Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator on the Intel Core i5-9400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB reveals a configuration that is consistently constrained, with performance scaling that points directly at the graphics card as the primary bottleneck across all tested resolutions. The measured frames per second (FPS) show a clear pattern where the gap between the lowest and highest settings narrows as resolution increases, indicating that the GPU is saturated well before the CPU’s capabilities are fully utilized.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and telling. At Low settings, the average framerate falls from 68.6 FPS at 1920x1080 to 41.8 FPS at 3840x2160, a reduction of roughly 39%. This is a significant hit, but it is not catastrophic, suggesting the GPU is still managing the workload. However, the scaling becomes more punishing at higher quality presets. Moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings drops the average from 43.6 FPS to 24.6 FPS, a 43.5% decrease. At Ultra, the decline is from 38.1 FPS to 20.8 FPS, a 45.4% reduction.

These percentages indicate that the RTX 3050 4 GB is the limiting component. The 4K resolution demands a pixel throughput that the GPU’s 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus simply cannot sustain at high fidelity. The 1080p to 1440p transition shows a similar trend, with Low settings dropping from 68.6 to 59.5 FPS (a 13.3% loss) and Ultra dropping from 38.1 to 34.4 FPS (a 9.7% loss). The fact that the percentage drop is larger at 4K than at 1440p reinforces that the GPU is running out of raw processing power and memory bandwidth as the pixel count increases. The data suggests that the CPU, with its 6 cores and 6 threads, is not the primary factor in this scaling; it can feed the GPU at 1080p, but the GPU’s limits become the wall at higher resolutions.

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. Its benchmark scores place it in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2305. It sits very close to rivals like the Intel Core i3-10305 (score 2300, delta 0.2%) and the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (score 2299, delta 0.2%), indicating that its raw compute performance is modest by modern standards.

In the context of this game, the CPU’s role appears secondary. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 68.6 FPS, which is a playable frame rate and suggests the CPU is capable of handling the game’s simulation logic and draw calls at that resolution. However, the fact that the FPS does not scale dramatically when moving from Low to Ultra at 1080p (68.6 to 38.1) hints that the GPU is already the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat regardless of graphics settings, but the data shows a clear decline with higher settings. The 6-thread limitation of the i5-9400 could become a factor in complex scenes with heavy AI or weather simulation, but the benchmark results do not show a scenario where the CPU is clearly holding back the system, as the GPU saturates first.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is the clear performance ceiling for this combo. With 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, it is an entry-level Ampere part. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a hard constraint for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU’s base clock is 1545 MHz with a boost clock of 1740 MHz, and its 7.127 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is respectable for 1080p but insufficient for 4K at high settings.

The measured FPS data directly reflects these hardware limits. At 4K Ultra, the system averages 20.8 FPS, which is essentially unplayable. At 4K High, it is 24.6 FPS, still below the 30 FPS threshold. Even at 1440p Ultra, the average is 34.4 FPS, which is borderline. The 4 GB VRAM is a likely culprit for the poor high-resolution performance, as the game’s texture and geometry data likely exceed this capacity, causing the GPU to rely on slower memory swapping. The data implies that the RTX 3050 4 GB is only comfortable at 1080p, where it can provide 43.6 FPS on High and 53.9 FPS on Medium, but even there, it cannot reach a solid 60 FPS at higher presets.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance between visual quality and playable framerate is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This preset yields an average of 53.9 FPS, which is the highest framerate above the 50 FPS mark while still maintaining a reasonable level of graphical fidelity. Dropping to Low at 1080p pushes the average to 68.6 FPS, but the visual compromise is substantial. High at 1080p offers 43.6 FPS, which is playable but not smooth, and Ultra at 1080p falls to 38.1 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the best option is Low settings, which delivers 59.5 FPS. This is a solid result, but it requires sacrificing nearly all visual enhancements. Medium at 1440p drops to 42.5 FPS, and High and Ultra hover around 34 FPS, which is below the ideal playability threshold. For 4K, the data shows that no preset is truly playable, with Low being the only option above 30 FPS at 41.8 FPS. The recommendation is clear: stick to 1080p Medium for the best experience, or 1440p Low if the user prefers a higher resolution over visual details.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1636 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 9% of all configurations. This is a low ranking, but it is consistent with the individual components’ positions. The CPU sits at the 50th percentile, but the GPU, despite being from the 30-series, has a limited 4 GB memory allocation that hurts it in a VRAM-hungry title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data suggests that this combination is far from optimal, with the GPU being the weak link.

The ranking implies that most other tested combos outperform this setup, likely due to either faster CPUs or GPUs with more memory. The delta between this combo and the top performers is significant, as the 1636th position out of 1795 indicates that only 159 combos are worse. This is not a configuration meant for high-end flight simulation; it is a basic setup that can handle the game at low to medium quality, but it will struggle with anything more demanding. The data shows that the CPU, while not a powerhouse, is not the main issue; the GPU’s memory and bandwidth constraints are what drag the overall ranking down.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured average FPS values is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 68.6 FPS
• Medium: 53.9 FPS
• High: 43.6 FPS
• Ultra: 38.1 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 59.5 FPS
• Medium: 42.5 FPS
• High: 34.3 FPS
• Ultra: 34.4 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 41.8 FPS
• Medium: 33.8 FPS
• High: 24.6 FPS
• Ultra: 20.8 FPS

These numbers show a consistent pattern: every resolution shows a clear drop-off from Low to Ultra, and the drop-off becomes more severe at higher resolutions. The 1440p Ultra figure (34.4 FPS) is slightly higher than the 1440p High figure (34.3 FPS), which is a minor anomaly in the data, likely due to measurement variance, but it does not change the overall trend. The 1080p Low result of 68.6 FPS is the only value that approaches a high-refresh experience, while all 4K values are below 42 FPS, confirming the GPU’s limitations.

FAQ

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

A: Technically yes, but not well. The data shows 4K Low averages 41.8 FPS, but High drops to 24.6 FPS and Ultra falls to 20.8 FPS. Only the Low preset is playable, and it requires significant visual compromises.

Q: What is the best resolution for a smooth experience?

A: 1920x1080 with Medium settings provides 53.9 FPS, which is the best balance of smoothness and visual quality. At 2560x1440, only Low settings reach a similar level at 59.5 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The FPS drops significantly with higher settings and resolutions, which points to the RTX 3050’s 4 GB memory and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth as limiting factors, not the i5-9400’s 6 cores.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its rivals?

A: The i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300) and Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299), with a delta of 0.2%. It is also 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2134 (2295).

Q: Why is the 4K Ultra performance so poor?

A: The 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus is insufficient for the high-resolution textures and geometry in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU’s 7.127 TFLOPS of FP32 compute cannot handle the pixel load at 3840x2160 Ultra, resulting in a 20.8 FPS average.

Q: Is this combo worth using for this game?

A: At 1080p Medium, it provides a playable 53.9 FPS, which is acceptable for casual play. However, the overall combo rank of 1636 out of 1795 shows it is a low-end configuration, and users seeking high fidelity or high refresh rates would need a more powerful GPU.