Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this pairing of an Intel Core i7-14700KF with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a combination that is heavily skewed toward CPU capability. The measured frame rates show a system that is clearly limited by the graphics card in nearly every scenario, yet the processor ensures that the simulation's complex calculations are handled with ease. The data indicates that this combo ranks 3143 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower third of all systems, which tells you immediately that this is not a high-end experience. However, the specific numbers reveal a playable setup at lower resolutions and settings, with the CPU headroom suggesting that a future GPU upgrade would unlock significant performance.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable and steep decline as resolution increases, but the pattern reveals exactly where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 78 FPS, which is the highest average recorded across all tested configurations. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 63 FPS, a 19% reduction, and at 4K Low the average falls to 46 FPS, which is a 41% drop from the 1080p figure. This scaling behavior is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the increased pixel count directly impacts the rendering workload.

The gap between resolution tiers is even more telling when examining the Medium preset. At 1080p Medium, the average is 60 FPS, while 1440p Medium produces 49 FPS, and 4K Medium falls to 36 FPS. The difference between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings is 40%, which is a substantial loss but not catastrophic. The High preset tells a similar story: 45 FPS at 1080p, 37 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, with 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K.

What these numbers indicate is that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the primary limiting component at every resolution above 1080p Low. The frame rate drop from 1080p to 1440p at High settings is 18%, but the drop from 1440p to 4K is 27%, showing that the GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit memory bus are struggling with the increased texture and shading demands. The 4K results are consistently below 30 FPS for High and Ultra presets, which is not a playable experience for a flight simulator that requires smooth camera movements. The data suggests that 1080p is the sweet spot for this combo, where the CPU can feed the GPU enough data to maintain playable frame rates even at higher presets.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700KF is a 20-core, 28-thread processor with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, built on the Raptor Lake architecture. This is a desktop-class CPU with a 33 MB shared L3 cache, and its benchmark scores are impressive: it achieves 44167 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6235 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 21462. These numbers place the CPU in the 94th percentile of all processors tested, meaning it is faster than 94% of the database entries.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the complex physics, flight dynamics, and world streaming calculations that occur constantly. The data shows that this processor is not the bottleneck in this combo. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 78 FPS, which is likely close to the GPU's maximum output at that setting. The CPU's single-core performance, evidenced by the 6235 Cinebench R23 score, is crucial for this game, as it relies heavily on a few main threads for the simulation logic. The 20 cores and 28 threads provide ample headroom for background tasks and the game's multi-threaded aspects, such as terrain loading and AI traffic.

The nearest CPU rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, which scores 0.2% higher on average, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, which is 1% lower. This means the i7-14700KF is essentially on par with the best available alternatives, and its performance in this game is unlikely to be a limiting factor. The data suggests that even at 4K Ultra, where the average FPS is 26, the CPU is still capable of delivering those frames, but the GPU simply cannot render them faster. If you were to pair this CPU with a more powerful graphics card, the frame rates would improve dramatically, as the processor has significant untapped potential in this workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, with 1408 shading units and 48 ROPs. This is an end-of-life product that was released in 2019, and its benchmark scores reflect its age. The PassMark G3D score is 12699, which places it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning it is exactly average in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 580, which scores 0.4% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, which is also 0.4% higher.

In this game, the GPU's limitations are stark. The 6 GB VRAM is a significant constraint at higher resolutions, as the 4K results show. At 4K Medium, the average FPS is 36, with a minimum of 31 and a maximum of 41, indicating that the frame time is inconsistent and likely caused by texture swapping. The GPU's FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS is modest by modern standards, and the pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s is insufficient for 4K rendering at high quality settings. The data shows that the GTX 1660 SUPER is the definitive bottleneck, as the frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution and preset quality.

The 1080p results are more encouraging. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 78 FPS, which is a playable frame rate for a flight simulator. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 60 FPS, with a minimum of 51 and a maximum of 69, showing that the GPU can maintain a relatively stable experience. The High preset at 1080p produces 45 FPS, which is still within the range of playability, but the Ultra preset at 43 FPS is borderline. The data indicates that the GPU's 6 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p textures, but the shading units and ROPs are not powerful enough to handle the increased draw calls and effects at higher presets without a significant performance hit.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution where all presets produce playable frame rates. The 1080p Low setting achieves 78 FPS, Medium 60 FPS, High 45 FPS, and Ultra 43 FPS. At 1440p, only Low (63 FPS) and Medium (49 FPS) are above 30 FPS, while 4K results are all below 50 FPS, with the best being 46 FPS at Low.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: The GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The CPU scores in the 94th percentile, while the GPU is in the 53rd percentile. The frame rates drop significantly with resolution increases, which is a classic GPU-bound pattern. At 4K Ultra, the combo only manages 26 FPS, which is not caused by CPU limitations but by the GTX 1660 SUPER's inability to render the scene.

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

A: Technically yes, but not at playable settings. The 4K Low preset achieves 46 FPS, which is borderline playable, but 4K Medium drops to 36 FPS, and both High and Ultra are below 30 FPS (27 and 26 respectively). The 4K Medium setting also shows frame drops to 31 FPS, indicating inconsistent performance.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in this game?

A: The GPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 580, which scores 0.4% higher on average, and the NVIDIA RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, also 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla M2090 scores 0.7% lower. These differences are minimal, meaning the GTX 1660 SUPER is on par with other mid-range GPUs from its era.

Q: What is the advantage of the i7-14700KF's 20 cores in this game?

A: The 20 cores and 28 threads provide substantial headroom for the game's multi-threaded tasks, such as terrain streaming and AI traffic. The CPU achieves 44167 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is in the 94th percentile, and its single-core score of 6235 indicates it can handle the simulation's main thread without bottlenecking the GPU.

Q: Is there a significant difference between the Medium and High presets at 1080p?

A: Yes, the data shows a 25% performance drop. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 60 FPS with a minimum of 51 and maximum of 69, while High averages 45 FPS. This suggests that the Medium preset offers a much smoother experience while still providing acceptable visual quality.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3143 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 15% of all systems in the database. This is a low ranking, but it is important to understand why. The CPU is a top-tier processor, ranking in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is only in the 53rd percentile. The pairing is heavily imbalanced, with the GPU dragging down the overall performance.

Compared to other combos in the database, this system will struggle to maintain high frame rates at higher resolutions. The data shows that the combo is best suited for 1080p gaming, where it can achieve frame rates above 60 FPS at Medium settings. However, the CPU's performance suggests that this is a system with a clear upgrade path. If the GPU were replaced with a more powerful model, the combo's rank would improve substantially, as the CPU has the headroom to support much higher frame rates.

The low rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capability but rather the GPU's age. The GTX 1660 SUPER is an end-of-life product, and its performance is simply not competitive with modern graphics cards. The data indicates that this combo is a budget-oriented build that prioritizes CPU performance for other tasks, with gaming as a secondary consideration. For a flight simulator that is known to be CPU-intensive, this is a reasonable trade-off, but the overall experience is limited by the graphics card.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo is at 1080p with the Medium preset. The Medium setting at 1080p achieves an average of 60 FPS, with a minimum of 51 and a maximum of 69, which provides a smooth and consistent frame rate. This is the only preset at 1080p that maintains a minimum above 50 FPS, ensuring that there are no significant stutters during flight.

If you prefer higher visual quality, the High preset at 1080p is a viable option, with an average of 45 FPS. This is still playable, but the lower minimum frame rate (not recorded, but inferred from the average) may cause occasional dips during complex scenes. The Ultra preset at 1080p averages 43 FPS, which is only slightly lower than High, but the visual difference may not justify the performance loss.

For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset is the only option that provides a consistently playable experience, averaging 63 FPS. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 49 FPS with a minimum of 41, which is acceptable but may feel less smooth. At 4K, the Low preset averages 46 FPS, which is borderline playable, but the Medium preset at 36 FPS is recommended only for screenshots or low-demand scenarios.

The data strongly suggests avoiding the Ultra preset at all resolutions above 1080p, as it produces average frame rates below 35 FPS, which is not suitable for a flight simulator that requires precise control. The Medium preset at 1080p offers the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, with the High preset as a secondary option if you prioritize graphics over frame rate stability.