Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 580 shows a consistent pattern: frame rates decline as resolution and visual demand increase, and no tested configuration reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the average frame rates span from 52.7 FPS at Low settings down to 32.4 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset delivers 42.8 FPS, while High lands at 34.1 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9.9 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 8.7 FPS. High to Ultra only drops 1.7 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end of the settings range. The closest any setting comes to the 60 FPS threshold is Low at 52.7 FPS, which remains 7.3 FPS short.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average frame rates compress into a narrower band. Low produces 43.7 FPS, Medium drops to 31.8 FPS, High yields 26.5 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 25.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium here is 11.9 FPS, a larger step than at 1080p. From Medium to High, the loss is 5.3 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 0.6 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset offers almost no visual benefit over High at this resolution for this hardware combination.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium falls to 24.3 FPS, High drops to 16.5 FPS, and Ultra manages just 18.6 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra scores 2.1 FPS higher than High at 4K, an anomaly likely tied to specific scene loading or driver behavior rather than a consistent trend. The spread from Low to Ultra is 14.4 FPS, with the largest single step occurring between Low and Medium at 8.7 FPS.

No minimum or maximum frame rate data was recorded for any resolution or preset, so all analysis relies on average FPS values. The absence of min/max figures means frame pacing and stutter behavior cannot be assessed from this dataset, only overall throughput.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals how the workload shifts between the Intel Core i3-12100F and the AMD Radeon RX 580. At 1920x1080, the CPU's four cores and eight threads are more relevant relative to the GPU, but the RX 580 still limits performance heavily in this simulator. The 18.7 FPS drop from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows that even at the lowest resolution, the GPU struggles with the game's rendering demands.

When resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low settings falls from 52.7 to 43.7, a 17% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at Low, as pixel count alone removes 9 FPS. At High settings, the same resolution jump costs 7.6 FPS (34.1 to 26.5), a 22% drop. The larger percentage loss at High suggests the GPU is even more saturated when additional effects and geometry load are active.

The leap from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 is punishing. Low settings drop from 43.7 to 33 FPS, a 24.5% reduction. Medium falls from 31.8 to 24.3 FPS, a 23.6% loss. High goes from 26.5 to 16.5 FPS, a 37.7% collapse. These figures confirm that the RX 580's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.175 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are overwhelmed at 4K, regardless of the CPU's state.

The CPU's role is most visible in the relatively small gaps between presets at the same resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Medium and High is 8.7 FPS, while High to Ultra is only 1.7 FPS. This pattern repeats at 1440p and 4K, indicating that beyond Medium settings, the GPU becomes the sole limiting factor. The i3-12100F, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11860 and single-core score of 1674, provides enough processing headroom to keep the GPU fed at these frame rates, which never exceed 52.7 FPS. The CPU is not the constraint in any tested configuration; the RX 580's aging GCN 4.0 architecture is the binding element.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS average. The recorded data shows that no resolution and preset combination reaches this target.

At 1920x1080, the best available result is Low settings at 52.7 FPS. This is 7.3 FPS short of the 60 FPS mark. Medium drops to 42.8 FPS, High to 34.1 FPS, and Ultra to 32.4 FPS. Since none of these clear 60 FPS, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the highest average is Low at 43.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 31.8 FPS, High at 26.5 FPS, and Ultra at 25.9 FPS. Again, no preset reaches 60 FPS, so there is no qualifying "best settings" option.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS, Medium 24.3 FPS, Ultra 18.6 FPS, and High 16.5 FPS. The 60 FPS threshold is far out of reach across the board.

The verdict data confirms this: all three resolutions list empty arrays for playable settings, with null values for best settings and average FPS at best. The conclusion is straightforward: this combination cannot sustain 60 FPS at any resolution or preset in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database provide context for the i3-12100F's role. The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average benchmark score of 13492, just 0% different from the i3-12100F's 13494. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, a 0.3% difference. The Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% behind at 13594, and the Intel Core i7-1250U trails by 1.1% with 13351. These deltas are all within noise, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU. The i3-12100F sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, placing it above the median but far from high-end parts.

For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 580 averages 12928 in benchmark scores, placing it at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile at 12940, just 0.1% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER scores 12986, 0.4% higher. On the slower side, the AMD Radeon 740M is 0.5% behind at 12870, and the AMD FirePro W5100 is 0.6% behind at 12847. In practical terms, swapping the RX 580 for a GTX 1660 SUPER would yield frame rate differences under 1%, far too small to change the playability verdict. Similarly, moving to an RTX 3050 Ti Mobile would not push any preset past 60 FPS.

The key takeaway is that the entire cluster of rival GPUs performs within a 1% band. No adjacent hardware would transform the experience from unplayable to playable at any resolution. The bottleneck is fundamental to the GPU generation, not a specific model quirk.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The recorded data says no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: all three resolutions list no playable settings.

At 1920x1080, the best case is Low settings at 52.7 FPS. This is a playable experience in the sense that it remains above 30 FPS, but it fails the stated 60 FPS criterion. Medium at 42.8 FPS is smoother than the 30 FPS minimum but still well below target. High at 34.1 FPS and Ultra at 32.4 FPS are borderline for basic motion fluidity but far from ideal.

At 2560x1440, even Low settings only reach 43.7 FPS. Medium at 31.8 FPS is barely above the 30 FPS floor, while High and Ultra sit at 26.5 and 25.9 FPS respectively, dipping under that floor. Playing at 1440p with this hardware means accepting sub-30 FPS at most settings, which is generally considered unplayable for a flight simulator that requires smooth camera panning and instrument scanning.

At 3840x2160, all presets are below 33 FPS, with High and Ultra falling to 16.5 and 18.6 FPS. These are slideshow-level frame rates, not viable for any serious simulation.

In summary, the combination of Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 580 cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any tested resolution or preset. The closest approach is 1080p Low at 52.7 FPS, which some users might tolerate, but the strict playable threshold is not met.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combination achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average is 52.7 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Is 2560x1440 playable with this PC?

A: No. The best result at 1440p is 43.7 FPS at Low settings, and all other presets fall below 32 FPS. None reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the RX 580 compare to its closest GPU rival in this game?

A: The RX 580's average benchmark score of 12928 is within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (12986), so performance in this game would be nearly identical.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The i3-12100F's Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 11860, and frame rates never exceed 52.7 FPS, so the CPU has headroom.

Q: Can this PC run the game at 3840x2160?

A: Not at a playable level. The best 4K result is 33 FPS at Low settings, with Ultra at 18.6 FPS and High at 16.5 FPS.

Q: What happens if I upgrade to a CPU like the Intel Core i5-9500?

A: The i5-9500 has an average score of 13452, only 0.3% different from the i3-12100F, so frame rates would remain effectively unchanged.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 580 combination ranks 3367 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 9% of all tested systems, which aligns with the measured frame rates: no preset at any resolution clears 60 FPS.

The ranking reflects that this hardware pair is significantly below the median for this specific game. The CPU at the 68th percentile of all CPUs is not the problem; the GPU at the 53rd percentile, coupled with the game's heavy rendering demands, drags the overall combo down. The RX 580's 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are sufficient for capacity, but its 6.175 TFLOPS compute throughput is simply too low for Microsoft Flight Simulator's detailed world rendering at higher settings.

Compared to the nearest rival combos, swapping either component would not meaningfully change the ranking. The GPU's closest rival (GTX 1660 SUPER) is only 0.4% faster, and the CPU's closest rival (Core 3 N355) is 0% different. This combo is stuck in a performance band where no single-component upgrade within the same tier would reach 60 FPS at 1080p, let alone higher resolutions. The rank of 3367 out of 3714 is a clear signal that this system is not suitable for the game at the defined playable threshold.