Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i7-13700K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 presents a fascinating study in bottleneck dynamics within Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a system where a high-end 13th-generation CPU is clearly constrained by a mid-range Turing GPU, particularly as resolution increases. This combination, ranking 2912 out of 3714 tested combos, demonstrates that while the processor has immense headroom, the graphics card dictates the final experience in this flight simulator.

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

The Intel Core i7-13700K is a Raptor Lake-S architecture processor with 16 cores and 24 threads. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, boosting up to 5.40 GHz, which provides substantial single-thread performance. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU achieves a single-thread score of 1136 in 3dmark and a Geekbench single-core score of 2529. This strong single-core performance is critical for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on the main game thread for physics and scenery processing.

The 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache help maintain high instruction throughput. The CPU’s multithreaded capabilities are equally robust, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30745 and a Geekbench multicore score of 19429. However, the game's measured FPS data indicates that this processing power is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 92 FPS, but this drops to 51 FPS at Ultra, showing that the CPU can feed frames well above what the GPU can render at higher quality settings.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 89 versus all CPUs confirms it is a top-tier part. Compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows it is virtually tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, with a deltaPct of -0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX, with a deltaPct of 0.5%. The 13700K’s 16 cores and 24 threads are more than sufficient for the simulation's demands, meaning that FPS variations across settings are attributable to the GPU, not a lack of CPU headroom. The architecture supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and its Gen 5 PCIe lanes, which future-proofs the platform, but this does not translate to higher FPS when the GPU is saturated.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is a Turing architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. Its base clock is 1365 MHz, boosting to 1680 MHz, and the memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. This 6 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for loading vast amounts of terrain and texture data.

The GPU’s 1920 shading units and 48 ROPs provide a raw compute capability of 6.451 TFLOPS. In the Passmark G3D benchmark, it scores 14111, placing it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs. This is considered an entry-level to mid-range card by today's standards. The data shows that the RTX 2060 is the primary bottleneck in this system. For instance, at 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra settings reduces the average FPS from 92 to 51, a drop of 41 FPS, which indicates the GPU is struggling to keep up with the increased pixel and shader workload.

The 6 GB VRAM is particularly problematic at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the card manages only 30 FPS, as it likely runs out of memory capacity, forcing the system to swap textures. The nearest rival GPU data shows the RTX 2060 is very close in performance to the AMD Radeon RX 7600, with a deltaPct of 0.8%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM, with a deltaPct of 0.6%. This confirms that while the 2060 is not slow for its class, it is not a high-end part capable of driving a flight simulator at maximum settings.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear trend: as resolution increases, the average FPS drops significantly, confirming that the GPU is the limiting component. At Low settings, the system delivers 92 FPS at 1080p, 74 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. This is a 40% performance drop from 1080p to 4K, showing that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are being pushed to their limits.

At High settings, the drop is even more pronounced: 54 FPS at 1080p falls to 43 FPS at 1440p and then to 32 FPS at 4K. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at High settings shows a 25% FPS reduction, which is more than the 20% reduction seen from 1080p to 1440p. This non-linear scaling suggests that the RTX 2060’s 6 GB VRAM is being exhausted at 4K, leading to more severe performance penalties.

The Medium settings provide the only complete set of min/max FPS data, showing 71 FPS average (61 min, 82 max) at 1080p, 58 FPS average (49 min, 66 max) at 1440p, and 42 FPS average (36 min, 49 max) at 4K. The fact that the CPU can maintain such high frame rates at 1080p Low (92 FPS) proves that the i7-13700K is not the bottleneck. If the CPU were the limit, we would see similar FPS numbers across all resolutions, but the data shows FPS is inversely proportional to resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Intel Core i7-13700K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 ranks 2912 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 22% of all combinations tested, which is surprising given the strong CPU. The ranking suggests that the RTX 2060 drags down the overall performance potential of the i7-13700K.

The data implies that while the CPU is capable of pushing high frame rates, the GPU cannot keep up with the demands of the game at higher settings. The combo rank is a holistic measure of how well these two parts work together in this specific title. The i7-13700K’s percentile of 89 indicates it is a top-tier CPU, and the RTX 2060’s percentile of 58 shows it is a mid-range GPU. The mismatch in performance tiers is evident in the final rank, as the GPU consistently holds back the CPU.

In comparison, if the benchmark database had a combo with the same CPU and a more powerful GPU, the rank would likely be much higher. The current rank of 2912 shows that this is a CPU-heavy system that is not balanced for this game. The deltaPct values for the CPU’s nearest rivals (e.g., -0.2% vs Ryzen 9 5900) are insignificant, meaning the CPU is not the issue. The GPU’s rivals are also very close in score, but none of them are high-end cards, which reinforces the idea that the GPU class is the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Why does the FPS drop so much from 1080p to 4K?

A: The FPS drop is due to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 being the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the system hits 92 FPS, but at 4K Low, it drops to 55 FPS. This 40% reduction in performance is caused by the GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth being exhausted by the higher pixel count and larger texture loads.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-13700K a good match for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this GPU?

A: The CPU is exceptionally capable, with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30745. However, the data shows the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU could easily handle higher FPS, but the RTX 2060 cannot render frames fast enough, especially at higher settings, leading to a lower combo rank of 2912.

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

A: Based on the measured FPS, 1080p is the most playable resolution. At Medium settings, it delivers an average of 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS, which provides a smooth experience. At 1440p, the average drops to 58 FPS, while 4K averages are below 55 FPS even at Low settings, which may be too low for comfortable play.

Q: How does the RTX 2060 compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 680M (15270, deltaPct 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15283, deltaPct 0%). It is slightly ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM (15199, deltaPct 0.6%) and the RX 7600 (15171, deltaPct 0.8%). This shows it is a mid-range performer.

Q: Does the 6 GB VRAM cause problems in this game?

A: Yes, the 6 GB VRAM is a limiting factor. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 30, which is likely due to the GPU running out of memory. The game requires large amounts of texture data, and the 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot keep up with the demands of very high-resolution textures.

Q: Is this a balanced system for this game?

A: No, the data indicates an imbalance. The CPU ranks in the 89th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 58th percentile. The measured FPS shows that the GPU is always the limiting factor, as the FPS scales inversely with resolution. This is a system where the CPU is far more capable than the GPU for this specific workload.

Settings Recommendations

For the best experience, the data suggests using 1080p resolution with Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the system achieves an average of 71 FPS with a minimum of 61 FPS and a maximum of 82 FPS. This provides a good balance between visual quality and smoothness, ensuring the frame rate stays above the 60 FPS threshold most of the time.

While 1080p High offers 54 FPS, which is playable, it sacrifices the headroom needed for busy scenes over cities or complex aircraft. The Medium preset is the sweet spot, as it also includes the only complete min/max FPS data set, indicating stability. At 1440p, the Medium preset drops to 58 FPS, which is still playable but with a lower minimum of 49 FPS, which might cause noticeable stutters.

Given the 6 GB VRAM limitation, Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as they yield only 51 FPS at 1080p and 30 FPS at 4K. For a consistent experience, 1080p Medium is the recommended preset, as it offers the highest average FPS above 60 while maintaining a reasonable visual fidelity. Lowering to 1080p Low increases the average to 92 FPS, but the visual trade-off is substantial. The data indicates that Medium at 1080p is the optimal choice for this specific CPU-GPU combo.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings preset, as provided by the benchmark data:

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 92 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 71 | 61 | 82 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 54 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 51 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 74 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 58 | 49 | 66 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 43 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 41 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 55 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 42 | 36 | 49 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 32 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 30 | - | - |

The data shows a clear and consistent drop in FPS as both resolution and settings increase. At 1080p, the system can handle Low settings with near 100 FPS, but the performance halves at 4K Ultra. The Medium settings are the only ones with full min/max data, and they show that the frame time variance increases with resolution, with a 13 FPS spread at 1080p, 17 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the RTX 2060 is working harder at higher resolutions, leading to less consistent frame pacing. The 4K Ultra results of 30 FPS are likely the result of the 6 GB VRAM limit, as the game struggles to manage assets, making this setting unplayable.