Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 sits in the 1978th position out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the upper-middle tier of all possible system configurations. This rank reflects a combination that is neither at the bleeding edge nor struggling at the bottom, which aligns with the component benchmarks: the CPU ranks in the 68th percentile among all processors, while the GPU sits in the 61st percentile among all graphics cards. For a flight simulator known for its demanding rendering of terrain and weather, this percentile placement suggests the combo is positioned to handle the game at mainstream settings, but the data reveals that resolution and preset choices will heavily dictate the experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1978 out of 3714 tested configurations places it just above the median, meaning roughly 53% of tested combos outperform it while 47% fall behind. This is a competitive but not dominant position. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs indicates that the i3-12100F is a solid performer in general compute tasks, while the GPU's 61st percentile among all GPUs shows the RTX 4060 is similarly above average but not exceptional within the broader graphics landscape. The measured FPS data confirms this middling position: at 1920x1080, the combo delivers 119 FPS on Low settings, which is excellent, but at 3840x2160 on Ultra, it drops to 40 FPS, which is well below the playable threshold of 60 FPS. The rank reflects a system that can excel at lower resolutions but hits hard walls as demand increases. The delta between the CPU's and GPU's percentile ranks is small, suggesting a balanced pairing where neither component dramatically bottlenecks the other, though the FPS scaling across resolutions will reveal where the limit lies.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear shift in component responsibility as resolution changes. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is 53 FPS (119 vs 66), indicating that the GPU is being stretched by the graphical load. However, the CPU is still keeping pace, as the FPS does not collapse entirely at Ultra. Moving to 2560x1440, the gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 42 FPS (96 vs 54), showing that the GPU is becoming more of a limiting factor as pixel count rises. At 3840x2160, the spread between Low and Ultra is 31 FPS (71 vs 40), and the absolute numbers are lower across the board, confirming that the GPU is the primary constraint at 4K. The CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing the same settings across resolutions. For example, at High settings, FPS drops from 70 at 1080p to 56 at 1440p to 42 at 4K, a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K. This scaling is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU's workload (simulation logic, AI traffic, physics) does not increase proportionally with resolution. The i3-12100F's four cores and eight threads, with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, provide sufficient single-thread performance for the game's core simulation loop, but the RTX 4060's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth become the deciding factor at higher resolutions. The data implies that at 1080p, the CPU and GPU are well balanced, but at 1440p and especially 4K, the GPU's capabilities define the ceiling.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce an average of 119 FPS, which is nearly double the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings yield 93 FPS average, with minimums at 79 and maximums at 107, indicating smooth performance with no significant dips. High settings average 70 FPS, and Ultra averages 66 FPS. The Ultra result is notable because it stays above 60 FPS, meaning the combo can max out the game at 1080p without crossing the playable line. The step from Medium to High costs 23 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra only costs 4 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset is not disproportionately heavier than High in this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the picture changes. Low settings average 96 FPS, still well above the threshold. Medium settings average 75 FPS, with a minimum of 64 and a maximum of 86, so the average is comfortable but the minimums are close to the 60 FPS line. High settings drop to 56 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold, and Ultra averages 54 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 19 FPS, which is a significant jump in graphical fidelity cost. The minimum FPS at Medium (64) is only 4 FPS above the playable mark, indicating that brief dips could push the experience below 60 FPS in dense scenarios.

At 3840x2160, the combo struggles. Low settings average 71 FPS, which is above the threshold but not by a large margin. Medium settings average 55 FPS, with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 64, meaning the average is below playable and the minimums are well under. High settings average 42 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 16 FPS, and from Medium to High costs another 13 FPS. This demonstrates a steep degradation curve as settings increase at 4K, with the GPU unable to maintain fluid frame rates beyond the lowest preset. The minimum FPS data at 4K Medium (47) highlights that even the average fails to reach 60, so the experience would be stuttery in practice.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playability depends entirely on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, all four presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—clear the 60 FPS threshold, with Ultra averaging 66 FPS. This is the resolution where the combo shines, allowing players to experience the game at its highest visual quality without performance concerns. At 2560x1440, only Low and Medium settings are playable, with Medium averaging 75 FPS but dipping to 64 FPS at minimum. High and Ultra fall short at 56 and 54 FPS respectively, so players must accept reduced visual fidelity to maintain smooth gameplay. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 71 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fail to reach 60 FPS, with averages of 55, 42, and 40 respectively. The verdict is clear: this combo is a 1080p champion, a capable 1440p performer with settings compromises, and a 4K system only for those willing to play on the lowest presets. The data suggests that for a flight simulator where visual immersion is key, the 1440p Medium setting at 75 FPS is the sweet spot, balancing detail and smoothness.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals based on average benchmark scores are the Intel Core 3 N355, with a delta of 0%, meaning it performs identically in synthetic tests. The Intel Core i5-9500 is 0.3% slower, while the Intel Core 5 120UL is 0.7% faster, and the Intel Core i7-1250U is 1.1% faster. These are all within a 2% performance band, so in practical terms, swapping the i3-12100F for any of these would result in near-identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, assuming the same GPU. The Core i5-9500, being a six-core part, might offer better multi-threaded performance in other workloads, but for this game, the data shows negligible differences.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.2% slower), AMD Radeon 780M (0.3% faster), AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.5% slower), and AMD Radeon Pro 460 (0.7% slower). The Radeon 780M is particularly interesting as it is an integrated GPU, suggesting that modern integrated graphics can approach the RTX 4060's performance in synthetic benchmarks, though the RTX 4060's dedicated 8 GB VRAM and higher bandwidth would likely give it an edge in actual gaming scenarios. These rivals would produce nearly identical FPS numbers in the measured scenarios, so users with these components should expect similar playability outcomes: playable at 1080p all settings, playable at 1440p up to Medium, and playable at 4K only on Low.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 66 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1440p to maintain 60 FPS?

A: Medium settings at 2560x1440 deliver an average of 75 FPS, with minimums of 64 FPS, making it the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. High settings drop to 56 FPS average.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: Only on Low settings, which average 71 FPS at 3840x2160. Medium settings average 55 FPS, and High and Ultra averages drop to 42 and 40 FPS respectively, all below the playable threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 1978th out of 3714 combos, placing it slightly above the median. The CPU is in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, and the GPU is in the 61st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Which component is more limiting at higher resolutions?

A: The GPU. At 4K, the FPS drops significantly across all settings, with Ultra averaging 40 FPS. The CPU's performance remains constant regardless of resolution, so the GPU's rendering load becomes the bottleneck.

Q: Are there any rivals that perform similarly to the RTX 4060 in this game?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 780M is 0.3% faster in synthetic benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon HD 7790 is 0.2% slower. These would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the only preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold is Low, with an average of 71 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall below 60 FPS, so Low is the sole playable option at 4K.

At 2560x1440, Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, averaging 75 FPS. While Low achieves 96 FPS, Medium offers significantly better visual quality with a still-comfortable average and minimums of 64 FPS. High and Ultra are not playable at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, Ultra is the best choice, averaging 66 FPS. All presets are playable here, so players can choose the maximum visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. The data shows that Ultra at 1080p delivers a better experience than Medium at 1440p, with only a 9 FPS difference (66 vs 75) but substantially higher graphical quality.