Microsoft Flight Simulator

Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER presents a study in contrasts within Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data reveals a system where a high-end 2023 processor is anchored by a 2019 graphics card, creating a bottleneck dynamic that shifts dramatically depending on resolution and settings. This combination ranks 1088th out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the lower half of the database, a position that suggests the GPU is the primary constraint in most scenarios.

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

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz. This is a flagship desktop part, evident in its benchmark scores: it achieves 49,872 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,040 in single-core. Its performance percentile of 97 versus all CPUs indicates it sits near the very top of the processor hierarchy, far ahead of rivals like the AMD EPYC 7413 (which trails by 0.3%) and the Intel Core i9-14900KF (which is 0.7% behind).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for complex flight dynamics and world-streaming calculations, this CPU provides substantial headroom. The data shows that at 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 112.8 FPS, a figure that is likely limited by the GPU rather than the processor itself. The CPU’s strength is further underscored by its PassMark multi-thread score of 58,674 and data compression score of 792,694, which are relevant to the game’s loading and terrain generation tasks. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and support for DDR5 memory (though the system’s memory type is not specified in the measured results) complement the high core count, ensuring that the processor is not the limiting factor in this configuration. The data implies that the i9-14900K is more than capable of feeding the RTX 2070 SUPER, but its potential is constrained by the graphics card’s throughput in this specific pairing.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its boost clock is 1770 MHz, and it contains 2,560 shading units alongside 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The GPU’s average benchmark score is 22,206, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 (0.5% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (2.5% ahead), showing it sits in a mid-range performance tier.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS drops to 36.3, and at 4K High it is 35.6, suggesting that the memory bandwidth and capacity are being saturated. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 18,169 reflects its compute capability, but in Flight Simulator, the heavy texture streaming and draw distances tax the memory subsystem heavily. The data indicates that the RTX 2070 SUPER is the dominant bottleneck: moving from 1080p Low (112.8 FPS) to 1080p Ultra (63.6 FPS) shows a 43.6% performance drop, which is a GPU workload response rather than a CPU limitation. The 14 Gbps effective memory speed is adequate for 1080p, but the 256-bit bus width struggles to maintain frame rates as pixel count increases.

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

Resolution scaling reveals the classic signature of a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 112.8 at 1080p to 91 at 1440p (a 19.3% decrease) and then to 65.9 at 4K (a further 27.6% decrease from 1440p). This steep decline is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limited pixel throughput, as the CPU’s workload remains relatively constant across resolutions.

The pattern is consistent across all settings. At High settings, FPS falls from 62.8 at 1080p to 52.5 at 1440p (a 16.4% drop) and then to 35.6 at 4K (a 32.2% drop from 1440p). The largest relative drop occurs between 1440p and 4K, which is where the 8 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth become insufficient. In contrast, the difference between 1080p and 1440p is smaller, indicating that the GPU can still handle moderate pixel counts but crumbles under 4K load. The data strongly implies that the i9-14900K is not the limiting component; if it were, FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the RTX 2070 SUPER’s performance ceiling is being hit, particularly at 4K where even Low settings (65.9 FPS) cannot reach the 1080p Ultra frame rate (63.6 FPS) — a telling sign that memory bandwidth is the constraining factor.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

For users targeting a smooth experience, the data suggests a trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. At 1080p, the Medium preset delivers 85.4 FPS, which is a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold for most flight simmers, while High and Ultra both hover near 63 FPS. Given the minimal difference between High (62.8 FPS) and Ultra (63.6 FPS) at 1080p, the Ultra preset offers the best visual quality without a measurable performance penalty, making it the recommended choice for 1080p displays.

At 1440p, the situation changes. Medium achieves 69.3 FPS, which is playable, but High drops to 52.5 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50.6 FPS. The data indicates that Medium is the sweet spot for 1440p, providing a 32% performance improvement over High while still retaining reasonable detail levels. At 4K, the results are more challenging. Low settings yield 65.9 FPS, which is the only preset that breaks the 60 FPS barrier, while Medium (51.4 FPS) and High (35.6 FPS) are increasingly unplayable. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only viable option for consistent smoothness, but the visual compromise is significant. The recommendation is clear: prioritize Medium at 1080p or 1440p for the best balance, and only use Low at 4K if frame rate is paramount.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER ranks 1088th out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This position, in the 60th percentile of all combinations, reflects the mismatch between the high-end CPU and mid-range GPU. The data shows that the CPU’s 97th percentile performance is wasted in this pairing, as the GPU’s 65th percentile ranking drags the overall result down.

Comparatively, the CPU’s nearest rivals (such as the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, which is 0.9% behind in average score) would likely produce similar results when paired with the same GPU, since the bottleneck is not the processor. Conversely, pairing this CPU with a stronger GPU would yield far better rankings, but that is outside the scope of this data. The 1088th rank suggests that this combo is adequate for 1080p gaming but struggles at higher resolutions, aligning with the measured FPS data. The discrepancy between the CPU’s elite status and the combo’s mid-pack ranking underscores that the GPU is the decisive factor in this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 112.8, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How much does the average FPS drop when going from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 63.6 at 1080p to 50.6 at 1440p, and finally to 36.3 at 4K — a total drop of 27.3 FPS from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Which resolution and settings combination produces the lowest average FPS?

A: The lowest average FPS is 35.6, recorded at 3840x2160 (4K) with High settings.

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-14900K or the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER the limiting factor?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as FPS drops significantly with increasing resolution, while the CPU’s performance percentile (97) far exceeds the GPU’s (65).

Q: What is the difference in average FPS between High and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High settings produce 52.5 FPS, while Ultra produces 50.6 FPS — a difference of only 1.9 FPS, suggesting the two presets are nearly identical in performance cost.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to all tested combinations?

A: It ranks 1088th out of 1,795 tested combos, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the database.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS values are as follows: Low settings produce 112.8 FPS, Medium produces 85.4 FPS, High produces 62.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 63.6 FPS. The progression shows a steep drop from Low to Medium (27.4 FPS), followed by a more gradual decline to High, and a slight increase from High to Ultra, which is an anomaly worth noting — it suggests that Ultra may not impose additional load over High at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 91 FPS for Low, 69.3 FPS for Medium, 52.5 FPS for High, and 50.6 FPS for Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 21.7 FPS, and from Medium to High is 16.8 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1.9 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the highest preset.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 65.9 FPS for Low, 51.4 FPS for Medium, 35.6 FPS for High, and 36.3 FPS for Ultra. Notably, Ultra is slightly faster than High at 4K (by 0.7 FPS), which is a minor inconsistency in the data but reinforces the idea that the GPU is fully saturated. The jump from Low to Medium at 4K is a 14.5 FPS drop, while the drop from Medium to High is a substantial 15.8 FPS, showing that the GPU’s limits are hit hardest between Medium and High at this resolution.