Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a title that pushes hardware to its limits, marrying vast streaming landscapes with complex procedural systems. The pairing of the 16-core Intel Core i7-13700K with the 6 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti makes for a curious study in imbalance: a processor that sits at the 89th percentile among all tested CPUs, mated to a graphics card from the GeForce 10-series line, which itself has been marked end-of-life. This combination yields a composite rank of 3181 of 3714 tested combos in this game—a number that signals the graphics card is dragging the platform down, despite the CPU pulling more than its weight. The measured data, spanning three resolutions and four quality presets, illustrates exactly why this pairing underperforms: strong CPU headroom is never fully exploited because every frame is throttled by the GPU's compute resources, its modest pixel fill rate, and its capped 6 GB frame buffer. Even so, the system delivers a playable experience at 1080p with moderate settings—just enough to keep a flight sim enthusiast in the virtual skies without forcing them to juggle configuration files.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700K brings 16 physical cores along with 24 threads, running at a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It uses the Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 7nm-class (10nm) process, with a shared L3 cache of 30 MB. The CPU's benchmark credentials are solid: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30745 and a single-core score of 2116. Its average synthetic benchmark score of 46881 places it in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. However, its nearest rivals (the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375, the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX, and the Intel Xeon w3-2535) all fall within a +/-0.5% spread of that average score—meaning the 13700K holds its own but doesn't outclass its peers.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is primarily in the marching order of the physics engine, the deterministic simulation of the 3D world, and the heavy serial work flow. At 1080p with the Low preset, the combo hits an average of 77 frames per second—a very strong showing. But the CPU is not the lynchpin here; the frame-rate ceiling is largely set by the GPU. For example, at 1080p and High, the average drops to 45 FPS, and at Ultra to 43 FPS—numbers far below the CPU's ceiling. The i7-13700K can serve as a steamrolling CPU for this game, but the data indicates the 1660 Ti is unable to harness its bandwidth.

It is also worth noting the CPU's benchmarks: the Geekbench multicore score is 19429, a mark that indicates robust compositing and paying simulation workloads. But none of these synthetic scores translate into proportional game increases beyond a certain point, because Microsoft Flight Simulator is designed to be heavily graphics-bound in general, and it's de-menting when paired with entry-level hardware. The CPU's 24 threads are overkill for this game---the limitations reside elsewhere.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured combo ranking of 3181 out of a total of 3714 combos is striking. That places this specific CPU+GPU pairing in the bottom portion of all tested configurations, despite the CPU being exceptional. The i7-13700K itself is near 89th percentile, and its benchmark average (46881) is only -0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 (46671) and -0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 (47022), but is also 0.5% ahead of both the Ryzen 9 7845HX (46654) and the Xeon w3-2535 (46653). Such a small delta in CPU performance means the i7-13700K is not the differentiating factor—it's the graphics card that decides everything.

The GTX 1660 Ti's position is far more elusive. Its average benchmark score is 7723, sitting in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, with its closest rivals being the Radeon 540 (7673, +0.7%), the Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, +1.9%), the Radeon R7 250 (7560, +2.2%), and the Intel Arc A310 (7560, +2.3%). So the 1660 Ti edges out these four by a very slim margin—between 0.7% and 2.3%. That's not a leap that necessitates a top gaming ranking; it's a middle-tier chip that struggles with modern titles.

The dispute is clear: a powerful CPU is wasted in a system that can't deliver frames. This is underscored by the combo's measured FPS numbers across all 12 tested points. On top of that, no amount of CPU overclock will help; it's the GPU's raw power that dictates performance.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data exposes a consistent pattern of frame degradation as the resolution increases, and the behavior is quite predictable across all four quality presets. Let's look at the average framerates for each resolution and preset:

• Low: 1080p → 1440p → 4K yields 77 → 62 → 46 FPS (a drop of 15, then a further 16 for the next step).
• Medium: 60 → 49 → 36 (11 FPS drop from 1080 to 1440, 13 FPS from 1440 to 4K).
• High: 45 → 37 → 27 (8 FPS drop each time).
• Ultra: 43 → 35 → 26 (8 FPS drop from 10 pixel to 1440p, 9 FPS drop from 1440 to 4K).

These numbers show a clear trend: the higher the resolution, the more the system's performance is overshadowed by the GPU's absolute limits. For Low and Medium presets, the relative decrease is more pronounced, because at lower quality settings, the GPU is not pushed as heavily, yet even then the memory bus still saturates. In this scaling, it's undeniable that the CPU remains idle and the GPU is the limiting factor. For instance, at 1080p Low, the average is 77 FPS—a value that could be even higher if the CPU had more to feed, but at 4K Low the average plummets to 46, which is still playable but unmistakably GPU-driven.

The takeaway: the visible* gap between run-up and 1080p vs 4Kp is driven entirely by the GPU's rendering capacity, not by any CPU. Encourage the Fastest, the i7-13700K has enough single-thread and multi-thread capability to lead simulator logic, but the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is a 6 GB card that must crunch every texel.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Exact measurements, per resolution and settings, are presented for transparency:

1920x1080

• Low: 77 avg FPS
• Medium: 60 avg FPS (min 51, max 69)
• High: 45 avg FPS
• Ultra: 43 avg FPS

2560x1440

• Low: 62 avg FPS
• Medium: 49 avg FPS (min 41, max 56)
• High: 37 avg FPS
• Ultra: 35 avg FPS

3840x2160

• Low: 46 avg FPS
• Medium: 36 avg FPS (min 30, max 41)
• High: 27 avg FPS
• Ultra: 26 avg FPS

These numbers expose a hard truth: only the 1080p Low (77 FPS) and 1440p Low (62 FPS) exceed the 60 FPS threshold. Even 1080p Medium (60 FPS) barely touches that, and every other setting falls short of what most players would call "smooth". The 4Kp numbers are all below 46 FPS, with a worst-case 23 FPS at Ultra. Min-max ranges for Medium only exist for those rows; the data doesn't include frame-time behavior for the other settings, but the average already hints at performance limitation.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti packs 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1500 MHz (effective 12 Gbps), delivering a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. Its core has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. It runs at a base of 1500 MHz, boosting to 1770 MHz, and offers 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. This is a polar opposite to the i7-13700K's 30 MB cache: the GPU has no L3, and its 6 GB VRAM is the kind of shrink that makes flight simulator texture streaming a challenge.

In the real world, this GTX 1660 Ti's 41st percentile rank Among all GPUs says it all. Its nearest rivals—the Radeon 540 (0.4% faster), the Radeon Pro WX 3100 (1.9% slower), the Radeon R7 250 (2.2% slower), and the Arc A310 (2.3% lower)—are all at the tok bottom of the Discrete GPU ladder. The deltaPct values show these banners are nearly indistinguishable; the 1660 Ti is the fastest of a weak family. Still, in this game, those small gaps don't matter—even its best efforts are one-third of the CPU's output.

The GPU's role here is literally a choke point: it caps framerates at every resolution tested, particularly at 4K where the VRAM also becomes a key factor (streaming mammoth textures). The frame times at 1080p Medium (min 51, max 69) hint at a variance of 18 FPS, which means occasional stutter as the card, workload.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can this CPU-GPU combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with the Low preset (77 fps avg) and Medium (60 fps avg). At higher resolutions or quality presets, the system falls below 60 FPS; for instance, 1440p Medium is 49 FPS and 4K High is 27 FPS.

Q: Which is the bottleneck, the CPU or the GPU?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU is graded at the 89th percentile, while the GPU sits at 41st. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a linear drop between resolutions, same not CPU-dependent.

Q: Why is the combo rank (3181 of 3714) so low if the CPU is highly rated?

A: Because the GPU pulls the whole system down. The rank reflects the actual measured performance at pairing, and the 6 GB capacity and limited compute can't keep pace. The CPU's strong synthetic scores are not matched on the graphics side.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Medium (49 fps) is the highest average above 45 FPS. Low gives 62 FPS, making it smoother if you prefer target high framerates. Ultra (35 fps) and High (37 fps) are both below 40, not ideal.

Q: Does the 6 GB VRAM cause the drop at 4K?

A: The VRAM capacity is part of the problem—the card only has 6 GB, and while data doesn't provide a direct VRAM usage measurement, the massive texture supply of Flight Simulator worsens the low bandwidth at resolution; 26-27 fps at 4Kuggests the memory and compute are overwhelmed.

Q: Which GPU would you recommend from this data to fix the bottleneck?

A: The data doesn't include a broader list of GPUs, but the overall ranking strategy shows that the GPU percent rank is 41st among all GPUs, meaning there are many faster options. Any modern GPU with a higher percentile would lift the combo's mid-to-high 1080p results.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the most sensible routes are to prioritize framerate for flight sim (where smoothness often beats 4K unless you have a GPU with more headroom). At 1080p: the Low preset (77 fps) might be too minimal for scenery lovers; Medium (60 fps) is a balanced sweet spot, providing a 12 FPS bonus over High (45 fps) while pushing visual quality over Low. If your monitor is capable of 75 or unknown refresh rate, Low still wins.

At 1440p, Medium (49 fps) is the highest playable setting; High (37 fps) Ultra (35 fps) are nearly identical and both under 40, hard to recommend. Use Medium and drop to Low (62 fps) if you want a fluid experience.

At 4K, none of the presets are ideal: Low (46 fps) is the only one that sits near 60, Medium (36 fps) is borderline, while High (27) and Ultra (26) are in the "very load" territory. The best is Low or Medium, with a concession on resolution to 1440p if you require more headroom.

Of all measured rows, the 1080p Low setup yields the best performance (77), but it's a compromise. The 1080p Medium at 60 is the most playable and preserves some visuals. For a GPU-limited simulator like this, the standard recommendation would the data suggests: choose 1080p, start at Medium, and then balance down from there. The combo is best for cockpit cockpit, not for stunning visuals at high detail.