Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 shows a wide spread of performance across resolutions and presets in Microsoft Flight Simulator. All figures are average FPS from the database, with no minimum or maximum frame time data captured for this title.

At 1920x1080, the combination delivers 89.5 FPS on Low, 69.9 FPS on Medium, 51.6 FPS on High, and 51.3 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is substantial at nearly 20 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is marginal at only 0.3 FPS. This suggests the Ultra preset carries a steep cost over High in visual terms, yet the hardware absorbs it with almost no additional frame loss, implying the bottleneck shifts elsewhere at these settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers drop predictably. Low settings yield 73 FPS, Medium falls to 59.6 FPS, High settles at 43.5 FPS, and Ultra lands at 42 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs roughly 13 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra is again tiny at 1.5 FPS. Notably, Medium at 1440p is just under the 60 FPS threshold, making it a borderline choice for smooth play.

At 3840x2160, the picture becomes much tighter. Low produces 54.8 FPS, Medium drops to 43.9 FPS, High manages 33.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 29.1 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the scaling from Low to Ultra represents a 25.7 FPS swing. The data shows that 4K is largely out of reach for this pairing, even at the lowest preset.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset is the only setting that clears 60 FPS at both 1080p and 1440p, while Medium does so only at 1080p. The pattern indicates that the combination is best suited to lower resolutions and lighter presets for this flight simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU pairing at 2941 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower portion of the field, roughly at the 79th percentile from the top, meaning about 79% of tested combos outperform it. This is not a top-tier result, but the ranking alone does not tell the whole story.

The CPU sits at the 68th percentile among all processors in the database, while the GPU is at the 58th percentile among all graphics cards. Both components are mid-pack individually, which explains why the combined result lands lower than either percentile alone. In a simulation title like this, the CPU often carries more weight, and the i3-12100F is a modest four-core, eight-thread part. The data suggests that the processor is likely the limiting factor at lower resolutions and lighter presets, while the GPU becomes more relevant at higher resolutions and heavier settings.

The rank of 2941 out of 3714 means that for users with this exact hardware, the experience will be adequate for lighter settings but not competitive with more powerful configurations. The measured FPS data confirms that the combo can hit playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, but it will not excel in demanding scenarios. This is a functional pairing rather than a high-performance one.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with Medium settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1080p Medium is 69.9, which exceeds the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best preset for 2560x1440?

A: Low is the only playable setting at 1440p, with an average of 73 FPS. Medium falls just below the threshold at 59.6 FPS.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 54.8 FPS, and every other preset is below that. None cross the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The RTX 2060 has an average benchmark score of 15290. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, scores 15283 with a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, also 0.1% behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is 0.6% ahead at 15199 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is 0.8% ahead at 15171. These are effectively equivalent performers.

Q: How does the CPU compare to nearby alternatives?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13494. The Intel Core 3 N355 is essentially tied at 13492 with a 0% delta. The Intel Core i5-9500 is 0.3% behind at 13452, the Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% ahead at 13594, and the Intel Core i7-1250U is 1.1% ahead at 13351. The differences are minor.

Q: What is the playable threshold for this game?

A: The database uses 60 FPS as the playable threshold. Any preset and resolution combination that meets or exceeds 60 FPS average is considered playable.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i3-12100F are all close in average benchmark score. The Intel Core 3 N355 matches at 13492 with a 0% delta, making it a direct substitute in terms of raw CPU performance. The Intel Core i5-9500 trails by 0.3% at 13452, the Intel Core 5 120UL leads by 0.7% at 13594, and the Intel Core i7-1250U is 1.1% ahead at 13351. All four sit within a narrow band, so swapping to any of them would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in this game.

On the GPU side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 is bracketed by four cards with almost no performance difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 scores 15283, a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270, 0.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199, 0.6% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 scores 15171, 0.8% ahead. These deltas are within noise, so any of these GPUs would deliver effectively the same frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator at the tested settings.

Users looking for comparable behavior should consider that the CPU and GPU both have near-identical alternatives. Pairing a different CPU from the same rival list with the RTX 2060 would not meaningfully change the measured FPS, nor would swapping the GPU for one of its close rivals while keeping the i3-12100F. The overall ranking of 2941 out of 3714 would likely shift by only a few positions with these swaps.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 69.9 FPS. Low reaches 89.5 FPS, but Medium offers a better visual balance while still clearing the threshold by nearly 10 FPS. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS at 51.6 and 51.3 respectively, so they are not recommended for smooth play at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 73 FPS. Medium drops to 59.6 FPS, just under the playable line, and High and Ultra are far behind at 43.5 and 42 FPS. Users at 1440p must accept Low settings to maintain smooth frame rates.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 54.8 FPS, followed by Medium at 43.9, High at 33.7, and Ultra at 29.1. There is no playable setting at 4K for this combination, so users should avoid this resolution or consider lowering the resolution to 1440p for a playable experience.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, as even Low only reaches 54.8 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low is the sole playable preset at 73 FPS. At 1920x1080, both Low and Medium are playable, with Medium being the best choice at 69.9 FPS.

The data indicates that this hardware is viable for 1080p gaming with medium settings, and for 1440p gaming only with low settings. Users targeting 60 FPS should stick to these combinations. The ranking at 2941 out of 3714 combos reinforces that this is a mid-to-low tier configuration for this specific title, but it is not unusable. The gap between the playable and non-playable presets is narrow, so users should carefully select settings based on their resolution.

For those who prioritize frame rate over visuals, the Low preset at 1440p delivers a comfortable margin above 60 FPS. For those who want better image quality, 1080p Medium is the sweet spot. Anything above that, whether resolution or preset, will result in sub-60 FPS performance.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data across resolutions and presets reveals how the CPU and GPU divide the workload in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080, the FPS drops from 89.5 on Low to 51.6 on High, a 37.9 FPS swing. This large gap at a resolution where the GPU is not heavily taxed suggests the CPU is handling much of the simulation logic, and the settings overhead scales with that load.

At 2560x1440, the swing from Low to Ultra is 31 FPS, from 73 to 42. The smaller absolute drop compared to 1080p indicates that the GPU is starting to become more involved, but the CPU still plays a significant role. The fact that Medium lands at 59.6 FPS, just under the threshold, shows that the CPU is not the sole bottleneck, yet it is close enough that even a modest GPU upgrade would not push Medium over 60 FPS without a stronger processor.

At 3840x2160, the swing from Low to Ultra is 25.7 FPS, from 54.8 to 29.1. The reduced scaling at higher resolutions is typical of GPU-bound scenarios, but here the absolute FPS is so low that both components are struggling. The CPU at 68th percentile and GPU at 58th percentile are both below average, so neither can compensate for the other.

The scaling between resolutions tells a consistent story. At Low settings, FPS drops from 89.5 at 1080p to 73 at 1440p to 54.8 at 4K. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 51.3 to 42 to 29.1. The proportional loss is steeper at Ultra, which suggests that the GPU is the limiting factor at the highest preset, while the CPU dominates at the lowest preset. For this game, the i3-12100F is the primary constraint at lighter settings, and the RTX 2060 becomes the primary constraint at heavier settings and higher resolutions.