Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this pairing of an Intel Core i9-14900K with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER produces a very specific bottleneck profile. The data shows a system where the CPU has enormous headroom, but the GPU is the definitive limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings. This combo ranks 1586 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 12th percentile of all tested systems, which is a direct reflection of the GPU's age relative to the simulation's demands.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a classic GPU-bound scaling pattern. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings drops the average frame rate from 42.3 FPS to 34.0 FPS, a reduction of roughly 19.6%. The jump from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is even more punishing, falling to 25.4 FPS, which is a further 25.3% decline. This steep curve indicates that pixel throughput is the primary constraint, not the CPU.

At Low settings, the scaling is more linear but still heavily GPU-limited. The 1080p Low result of 76.6 FPS drops to 62.7 FPS at 1440p (an 18.1% loss) and then to 46.9 FPS at 4K (a 25.2% loss). Notably, the gap between the 1440p and 4K results remains consistent regardless of settings, which suggests that the GTX 1660 SUPER's memory bandwidth and shading capacity are saturated early. The i9-14900K, with its 24 cores and 32 threads, is not the limiter here; even at 1080p Low, the CPU is likely waiting on the GPU to finish rendering each frame.

The Ultra preset tells a similar story. At 1080p Ultra, the combo manages 45.6 FPS, but this collapses to 34.6 FPS at 1440p and 26.6 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is 24.1%, and from 1440p to 4K is 23.1%. This consistency across presets is a hallmark of a pure GPU bottleneck; if the CPU were struggling, we would see diminishing returns as resolution increases, but instead the frame rate drops proportionally with pixel count.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured rows, the optimal experience for this combo depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 59.9 FPS, which is the closest to a smooth 60 FPS experience without sacrificing too much visual fidelity. The Low preset at 76.6 FPS is certainly playable, but it strips out too much of the visual detail that makes Flight Simulator immersive. The High preset at 42.3 FPS is a playable compromise, but it introduces noticeable stutter in busy scenery. Ultra at 45.6 FPS is not worth the performance hit over High, as the visual gains are marginal relative to the 3.3 FPS difference.

For 2560x1440, the data recommends Low settings. The 62.7 FPS at Low is the only playable option at this resolution. Medium drops to 50.2 FPS, which is borderline, and High (34.0 FPS) and Ultra (34.6 FPS) are simply too choppy for a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is critical. At 3840x2160, none of the presets deliver playable frame rates; the best case is Low at 46.9 FPS, but even that is marginal. The recommendation is to stick to 1080p for this GPU.

The sweet spot is clearly 1080p Medium. It provides a 59.9 FPS average, which is 18.7% faster than High and only 21.8% slower than Low, while offering substantially better visual quality than Low. The 1440p Medium result of 50.2 FPS is respectable, but the 19.3% drop from 1080p Medium suggests that the GPU is already straining to maintain visual detail at that resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1586 out of 1795 places this system in the bottom 11.6% of all tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a poor result, but it is entirely expected given the GPU's position in the market. The GTX 1660 SUPER sits at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, which is below average, and it is paired with a CPU that is at the 97th percentile. This mismatch means the system is severely unbalanced for this particular title.

The CPU's nearest rivals show it is a top-tier part. The i9-14900K is only 0.7% behind the Intel Core i9-14900KF and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF in average benchmark scores. It is also 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. This places the CPU in elite company, but it does nothing to help the GPU. The GPU's nearest rivals are all integrated or low-end discrete parts, with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 being 0.2% faster and the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics also 0.2% faster. This indicates the GTX 1660 SUPER is performing at the very bottom of the discrete GPU spectrum.

The 1586th rank is a direct consequence of this mismatch. If the CPU were weaker, the rank might be slightly lower, but the GPU is the sole reason this combo fails to reach even the middle of the pack. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a significantly stronger GPU would yield a massive rank improvement, as the CPU is not a limiting factor in any of the measured scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are: Low at 76.6 FPS, Medium at 59.9 FPS, High at 42.3 FPS, and Ultra at 45.6 FPS. The Ultra preset being faster than High is an anomaly in the data, likely due to driver optimizations or scene complexity variations, but it is the measured result. The spread from Low to High is 34.3 FPS, which is a 44.8% reduction, indicating that the GPU is very sensitive to settings changes at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 62.7 FPS, Medium at 50.2 FPS, High at 34.0 FPS, and Ultra at 34.6 FPS. The drop from Low to High is 28.7 FPS, a 45.8% reduction. The High and Ultra results are nearly identical, with only a 0.6 FPS difference, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling in terms of pixel fill rate. At 3840x2160, the results are: Low at 46.9 FPS, Medium at 35.5 FPS, High at 25.4 FPS, and Ultra at 26.6 FPS. The 4K results are all below 50 FPS, making this resolution impractical for this combo.

The pattern is consistent: the GTX 1660 SUPER cannot maintain 60 FPS at any resolution above 1080p Low. The 1080p Medium result is the only setting that approaches a smooth experience, and even it falls short of a locked 60 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture using a 12 nm process and features a TU116 chip. It has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost clock of 1785 MHz, and the memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). These specs put it in the lower-middle tier of GPUs, and the 55th percentile ranking confirms this.

The GPU's FP32 performance is 5.027 TFLOPS, and its texture rate is 157.1 GTexel/s. These figures are modest by modern standards, and the data shows that the GPU becomes the bottleneck as soon as resolution increases. The 6 GB of VRAM is also a concern for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for loading large textures. While the measured FPS does not explicitly show VRAM overflow, the significant frame rate drops at 4K High (25.4 FPS) suggest that the memory subsystem is under severe pressure.

The GPU holds a 55th percentile rank among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all weaker parts. The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is 0.7% faster, while the AMD Radeon Vega 11 is 0.5% faster. This shows that the GTX 1660 SUPER is at the edge of playability for modern titles, and this combo's performance is entirely dictated by this GPU's limits.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution that offers playable frame rates. At Low settings it achieves 76.6 FPS, and at Medium it hits 59.9 FPS. Both 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 result in average frame rates below 63 FPS even at Low settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-14900K holding back the GTX 1660 SUPER?

A: No. The CPU is at the 97th percentile of all CPUs and is only 0.7% behind the i9-14900KF in benchmarks. The frame rate drops from 1080p to 4K are proportional to pixel count, which indicates the GPU is the limiting component.

Q: Why is the Ultra preset sometimes faster than High?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 45.6 FPS, while High gets 42.3 FPS. At 1440p, Ultra gets 34.6 FPS and High gets 34.0 FPS. This is a measured anomaly likely due to scene complexity variations or driver behavior, but the data shows Ultra is not consistently slower.

Q: Can this combo run the game at 4K?

A: Technically yes, but not well. At 3840x2160, the best case is Low settings at 46.9 FPS, and the worst is High at 25.4 FPS. None of the 4K presets reach 60 FPS, so the experience will be choppy.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 1586 out of 1795 combos, which places it in the bottom 11.6% of all tested systems. This is a poor ranking for Microsoft Flight Simulator, directly attributable to the GPU's 55th percentile performance.

Q: What is the most balanced settings preset?

A: The 1080p Medium preset is the most balanced, delivering 59.9 FPS. It is only 21.8% slower than Low but offers significantly better visuals. The 1440p Low preset at 62.7 FPS is the only viable option for that resolution.