Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 570 shows a system that is consistently below the 60 FPS playable threshold across every resolution and preset combination tested. The measurements cover three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) and four settings tiers (Low, Medium, High, Ultra), with average FPS values only; no minimum or maximum frame time data was captured in the database.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. The Low preset delivers an average of 25.8 FPS, which is the best outcome at this resolution. Medium drops to 24.3 FPS, High falls further to 16 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 15.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is only 1.5 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is already saturated at this resolution, and further quality increases yield diminishing returns. The difference between High and Ultra is a negligible 0.2 FPS, indicating that the top two presets are essentially indistinguishable in performance here.

Moving to 2560x1440, the picture improves but remains far from playable. Low settings produce 37.1 FPS, which is the highest average recorded at this resolution. Medium reaches 32 FPS, High drops to 25.3 FPS, and Ultra manages 23.9 FPS. The scaling from 3840x2160 to 2560x1440 is notable: Low gains 11.3 FPS (from 25.8 to 37.1), Medium gains 7.7 FPS, High gains 9.3 FPS, and Ultra gains 8.1 FPS. These improvements show that resolution reduction provides meaningful relief, but the absolute numbers remain well below the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the best-case scenario emerges. Low settings deliver 48.1 FPS, which is the single highest average in the entire dataset. Medium follows at 36.9 FPS, High at 28.5 FPS, and Ultra at 27.5 FPS. The jump from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080 is substantial: Low improves by 11 FPS, Medium by 4.9 FPS, High by 3.2 FPS, and Ultra by 3.6 FPS. Even at the lowest settings and the most common gaming resolution, the system falls 11.9 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is always the fastest preset, and Ultra is always the slowest, but the spread between presets narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 20.6 FPS; at 1440p, it is 13.2 FPS; at 4K, it is 10 FPS. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck, and preset changes have less impact on the final frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination at 3527 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 5% of all tested systems, with only 187 combinations performing worse. This is a low ranking, and it reflects the measured FPS data: no preset at any resolution clears 60 FPS, and even the best case (1080p Low at 48.1 FPS) is 80% of the target.

The ranking context is important. This combo sits in the lower tail of the distribution, meaning that the vast majority of other CPU and GPU pairings in the database deliver higher average frame rates in this game. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to be demanding, and the data confirms that this particular hardware combination struggles to keep up with even mid-tier alternatives.

For perspective, the CPU alone ranks at the 68th percentile among all tested processors, while the GPU ranks at the 74th percentile among all tested graphics cards. Individually, both components are above average in the broader database. But when paired together for this specific title, the combined result falls to the 5th percentile. This discrepancy highlights that the game's workload does not favor this pairing, and that the interaction between the two components, likely the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth, creates a severe bottleneck that neither component can overcome on its own.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear shift in bottleneck behavior across resolutions. At 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. The FPS differences between presets are small, with only a 10 FPS spread from Low to Ultra. This is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the graphics card is fully utilized and reducing quality settings does not free up enough headroom to meaningfully increase frame rates.

At 2560x1440, the system remains GPU-bound, but the preset sensitivity increases. The spread from Low to Ultra grows to 13.2 FPS, and the Low preset shows a 44% improvement over Ultra (37.1 vs 23.9 FPS). This indicates that at 1440p, the GPU still dominates, but lowering settings begins to relieve some pressure.

At 1920x1080, the balance shifts. The Low preset reaches 48.1 FPS, which is 75% higher than Ultra at 27.5 FPS. The larger preset delta at 1080p suggests that the CPU starts to play a more significant role, as the GPU has more headroom to render frames quickly when settings are lowered, but the CPU must still feed the simulation logic. The Intel Core i3-12100F, with 4 cores and 8 threads, shows its limits here: even at Low settings, the system cannot reach 60 FPS, and the CPU's single-thread performance appears to cap the frame rate.

The scaling between resolutions reinforces this interpretation. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the FPS drops by 9 FPS (48.1 to 37.1), and from 1440p Low to 4K Low, it drops by 11.3 FPS (37.1 to 25.8). The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is 22.9%, while from 1440p to 4K it is 30.5%. The progressively larger percentage drops indicate that the GPU becomes more dominant as resolution increases, while the CPU's relative contribution fades.

For this game, the data shows that at 1080p, both components matter, but the CPU's 4-core, 8-thread configuration is a limiting factor. At 1440p and above, the GPU takes over as the primary constraint, and the RX 570's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus is insufficient for the game's high-resolution textures and rendering demands.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU, based on average benchmark scores. These alternatives can help identify what other hardware would behave similarly in this game.

For the Intel Core i3-12100F, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core 3 N355 (average score 13492, delta 0%), the Intel Core i5-9500 (average score 13452, delta 0.3%), the Intel Core 5 120UL (average score 13594, delta -0.7%), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (average score 13351, delta 1.1%). All four processors have nearly identical average scores, within a 1.8% band. This means that swapping the i3-12100F for any of these CPUs would produce very similar CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The i5-9500, with its older architecture but higher core count, would be the closest match in terms of overall compute capability.

For the AMD Radeon RX 570, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (average score 28874, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (average score 28580, delta 0.7%), the AMD Radeon RX 470 (average score 28996, delta -0.8%), and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 (average score 28421, delta 1.2%). The RX 470 is the most direct comparison, as it shares the same Polaris architecture and similar specifications. The RX 6800M, despite being a much newer and more powerful mobile GPU, has a nearly identical average score in the database, which suggests that benchmark averages do not always translate to real-world gaming performance. The Quadro RTX 8000, a professional workstation card, also lands in this range, but its drivers and feature set are optimized for compute, not gaming.

When considering alternatives for this specific game, the data suggests that pairing the i3-12100F with any of these GPUs would yield similar FPS numbers, as the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at higher resolutions. Conversely, pairing the RX 570 with any of these CPUs would also produce similar results at 1080p, where the CPU matters more. The practical takeaway is that this combination represents a narrow performance band, and adjacent hardware in the database would not offer a meaningful improvement without moving to a different performance tier entirely.

FAQ

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

A: The highest recorded average is 48.1 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination reaches this value.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any setting?

A: No. The database shows no playable settings at any resolution. The verdictByResolution data lists empty playableSettings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, meaning the system does not hit the 60 FPS threshold anywhere.

Q: How much better is 1080p Low compared to 4K Ultra?

A: The difference is 32.3 FPS. At 1080p Low, the average is 48.1 FPS, while at 4K Ultra, it drops to 15.8 FPS. That is a 204% improvement in favor of 1080p Low.

Q: Which preset gives the best performance at 1440p?

A: Low settings at 2560x1440 produce 37.1 FPS, which is the highest average at that resolution. Medium follows at 32 FPS, High at 25.3 FPS, and Ultra at 23.9 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The data indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at 1440p and 4K, where preset changes have limited impact. At 1080p, the CPU becomes more relevant, as the 4-core, 8-thread i3-12100F appears to cap performance even at Low settings, preventing the system from reaching 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems for this game?

A: It ranks 3527 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 5% of all systems in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 570 cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any tested resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution data is unambiguous: for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, the playableSettings arrays are all empty, meaning no configuration clears the 60 FPS threshold.

At 1080p, which is the best-case scenario, the system comes closest. Low settings deliver 48.1 FPS, which is 80% of the target, but even this minimum-quality preset falls short. Medium drops to 36.9 FPS, High to 28.5 FPS, and Ultra to 27.5 FPS. None of these are remotely close to a smooth experience for a flight simulator, where consistent frame pacing matters for accurate control inputs.

At 1440p, the best result is 37.1 FPS on Low, and at 4K, the best is 25.8 FPS on Low. These numbers confirm that the system is not viable for this game at higher resolutions. The data suggests that users would need to accept frame rates in the 25 to 48 FPS range, which is playable in a casual sense but far from the 60 FPS standard.

Ultimately that this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator if smooth, high-quality performance is the goal. The GPU's 4 GB memory and the CPU's 4-core design both contribute to the shortfall, and the combined rank of 3527 out of 3714 reflects that. For users with this hardware, the recorded data indicates that the game will run, but only at reduced settings and with significant compromises in visual fidelity and frame rate. The system does not meet the playable threshold at any resolution, making it a poor match for this title.