Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 7600 delivers a mixed bag for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a flight simulation title released on 2020-08-17. Benchmark data shows that this combo can handle 1080p and 1440p gaming comfortably at medium settings, but it falls short of the 60 FPS threshold at 4K across all tested presets. The measured frame rates reveal a system that is capable but not overwhelming, with performance scaling predictably as resolution and graphical demands increase.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p with 60 FPS?

A: Yes, at 1080p the system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold on both Low (104.2 avg FPS) and Medium (78.2 avg FPS) settings. High settings fall just short at 59.9 avg FPS, while Ultra drops to 55.9 avg FPS.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p?

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440, delivering an average of 64.8 FPS. Low runs at 81.2 avg FPS, but High (49.6) and Ultra (47.1) both fall below the threshold.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: No playable settings exist at 3840x2160. The best result is Low at 59.7 avg FPS, which is just under the 60 FPS threshold. Medium (43.9), High (34), and Ultra (34) all fall significantly short.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13494, putting it at the 68th percentile of all CPUs. It is essentially tied with the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, 0% delta), and sits within 1.1% of the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7600 has an average benchmark score of 15171, placing it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs. It is within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon 680M (15270) and 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (15082), showing close performance clustering.

Q: What is the overall rank of this combo among tested systems?

A: This specific CPU-GPU combination ranks 2495 out of 3714 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower third of all configurations benchmarked.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU side of this combo has several near-equivalents based on average benchmark scores. The Intel Core 3 N355 matches the i3-12100F almost exactly with a score of 13492 versus 13494, a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-9500 (13452) is only 0.3% slower, while the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594) is 0.7% faster. The Intel Core i7-1250U (13351) trails by 1.1%. These processors would all produce very similar CPU-bound behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning users swapping between them should see nearly identical frame pacing in CPU-limited scenes.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon RX 7600 sits in a tight performance band. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199) is 0.2% faster, while the AMD Radeon 680M (15270) is 0.7% faster. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X (15082) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (15063) are 0.6% and 0.7% slower respectively. All four rivals fall within a 1.4% spread of the RX 7600, meaning any of these cards would deliver nearly interchangeable frame rates in this game at the same settings and resolution.

For a system builder, choosing any combination from these rival pools would yield a machine with effectively identical performance characteristics to the i3-12100F + RX 7600 in this title. The practical differences would be imperceptible in average FPS terms, though individual scene complexity could cause minor variations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that Microsoft Flight Simulator becomes increasingly GPU-bound as resolution rises, but the CPU still plays a critical role at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 48.3 FPS (104.2 down to 55.9), indicating that the graphics card has plenty of headroom and the CPU is likely the limiting factor at lower presets. The i3-12100F’s 4-core/8-thread configuration and 12 MB of L3 cache are sufficient to keep frame rates high at 1080p, but the scaling from Low to Medium (26 FPS drop) suggests the GPU starts to take over as the bottleneck.

Moving to 1440p, the GPU’s influence grows. The spread from Low (81.2) to Ultra (47.1) is 34.1 FPS, a narrower gap than at 1080p but still substantial. The fact that Medium holds at 64.8 FPS while High drops to 49.6 indicates a steep performance cliff between these two presets, which is characteristic of a GPU hitting its memory bandwidth or shading unit limits. The RX 7600’s 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for Medium but insufficient for High at this resolution.

At 4K, the GPU is almost entirely the bottleneck. The range from Low (59.7) to Ultra (34) is just 25.7 FPS, and even Low cannot reach 60 FPS. This pattern confirms that the RX 7600’s compute resources (21.75 TFLOPS FP32, 2048 shading units) are simply not enough for 4K in this simulator, regardless of CPU performance. The CPU’s role diminishes to near-irrelevance at 3840x2160, as the GPU’s rendering workload dominates all other factors.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only at specific resolutions and settings. The verdict data is clear: at 1920x1080, Low and Medium presets are playable, with Medium being the best option at 78.2 avg FPS. At 2560x1440, Low and Medium also clear the 60 FPS bar, with Medium delivering 64.8 avg FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings achieve playable performance, with Low falling just short at 59.7 avg FPS.

For users targeting a smooth 60 FPS experience, 1080p Medium is the recommended configuration, offering a 30.2% margin above the threshold. At 1440p, Medium still works but with a slimmer 8% cushion. 4K gaming is not viable with this hardware, as even the lowest preset fails to hit the playable mark. The system’s overall rank of 2495 out of 3714 combos indicates it is below average for this title, but the playable presets at 1080p and 1440p mean it is far from useless.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 78.2 FPS. This leaves headroom for occasional dips while maintaining smooth gameplay. Low runs faster at 104.2 avg FPS, but Medium provides a better visual experience without sacrificing the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, Medium is again the best playable setting, averaging 64.8 FPS. This is a tighter margin above 60 FPS than at 1080p, so users should expect more frequent frame rate fluctuation in dense scenery or weather conditions. Low (81.2 avg FPS) is the safer choice for those who prioritize consistent performance over visual fidelity.

At 3840x2160, there is no recommended setting since all presets fail to reach 60 FPS. Low comes closest at 59.7 avg FPS, which is technically below the playable threshold. Users who insist on 4K would need to accept sub-60 FPS performance or reduce the resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 ranks 2495 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the 32.8th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly two-thirds of tested configurations perform better in this game. The rank reflects the CPU’s modest 4-core design and the GPU’s mid-range positioning, both of which limit performance in a title known for demanding both processor and graphics resources.

The CPU’s 68th percentile among all CPUs suggests it is a competent processor for general tasks, but its multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multicore: 11860, Geekbench multicore: 7252) are modest for a simulator that benefits from higher core counts. The GPU’s 57th percentile among all GPUs is similarly middling. Combined, these components produce a system that is adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming but not exceptional, which is consistent with its low ranking among the 3714 combos tested.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the system produces the following average frame rates: Low at 59.7 FPS, Medium at 43.9 FPS, High at 34 FPS, and Ultra at 34 FPS. The identical High and Ultra scores suggest that the GPU is completely saturated at these settings, with no headroom left for additional visual effects. The jump from Low to Medium (15.8 FPS drop) is steep, while the drop from Medium to High (9.9 FPS) is less severe, indicating a non-linear scaling curve.

At 2560x1440, performance improves substantially: Low averages 81.2 FPS, Medium 64.8 FPS, High 49.6 FPS, and Ultra 47.1 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2.5 FPS, suggesting that Ultra’s additional settings have minimal visual impact at this resolution. The drop from Low to Medium (16.4 FPS) mirrors the 4K pattern, but the system has enough headroom here to keep Medium above the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the full range of playable performance emerges: Low runs at 104.2 FPS, Medium at 78.2 FPS, High at 59.9 FPS, and Ultra at 55.9 FPS. The gap between Medium and High (18.3 FPS) is the largest single-step drop across all resolutions, highlighting a significant graphical complexity jump. High just barely misses the 60 FPS mark, so users who accept minor dips may still find it playable, but the data formally classifies it as below the threshold.