Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400 and Intel Arc B580 combination delivers a mixed but ultimately serviceable experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing that 1080p and 1440p gaming are viable while 4K remains out of reach. The pairing is clearly capable of clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold at medium settings in both 1080p and 1440p, but falls short at 4K across all tested presets. This is a configuration that rewards users who prioritize resolution over maximum visual fidelity, as the gap between Low and Ultra settings is substantial at every resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination produces its strongest results. Low settings yield an average of 95.1 FPS, which is comfortably above the playability threshold and provides significant headroom for demanding flight scenarios. Medium settings drop to 74.9 FPS, still well within playable territory, while High settings fall to 57.3 FPS, narrowly missing the 60 FPS mark. Ultra settings are the weakest at this resolution, producing 55.5 FPS, which is only 1.8 FPS below the High preset despite the substantial increase in graphical load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern shifts noticeably. Low settings deliver 76.4 FPS, a drop of 18.7 FPS from the 1080p result but still comfortably playable. Medium settings produce 62.8 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by a slim margin of 2.8 FPS. High settings fall to 42.4 FPS, and Ultra settings manage 41.7 FPS, representing a 30.7 FPS and 33.1 FPS reduction respectively compared to their 1080p counterparts. The scaling between Low and Medium at 1440p is relatively modest at 13.6 FPS, but the jump from Medium to High is steep at 20.4 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the data shows a configuration that is simply not viable for smooth gameplay. Low settings produce 57.1 FPS, which is 2.9 FPS below the playability threshold. Medium settings drop to 43.2 FPS, High settings fall to 33.7 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 28.8 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 28.3 FPS, indicating that even the most aggressive settings reductions cannot bring this combination to a playable state at this resolution. The step from Low to Medium at 4K costs 13.9 FPS, while Medium to High costs 9.5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 4.9 FPS.

The measured FPS data contains no minimum or maximum frame rate values, so the analysis relies entirely on average FPS figures. This means the data does not capture frame time spikes or stutters that could affect the perceived smoothness of the experience, particularly in complex urban environments or during rapid camera movements common in flight simulation.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals that the Intel Arc B580 is the primary performance determinant in this configuration. At 1080p, the CPU has more headroom to feed the GPU, which is why the gap between Low and Ultra settings is 39.6 FPS. At 1440p, this gap narrows to 34.7 FPS, and at 4K it compresses further to 28.3 FPS. This progressive narrowing indicates that the GPU becomes increasingly saturated as resolution increases, with the CPU playing a relatively smaller role at higher resolutions.

The Intel Core i5-12400's specifications support this interpretation. With 6 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, the CPU provides adequate processing power for flight simulation's physics and scenery generation tasks. The CPU's benchmark results, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15989 and a single-core score of 2257, suggest it can keep pace with the GPU's demands at lower resolutions.

However, the data indicates that at 4K, the GPU's limitations become the dominant factor. The Arc B580's 13.67 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 456.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at this resolution, regardless of the CPU's capabilities. The 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides adequate capacity but not enough bandwidth for 4K textures and geometry.

At 1080p and 1440p, the CPU and GPU work in better balance. The CPU's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 and DDR5) allow it to feed the GPU efficiently, while the GPU's 2560 shading units and 80 ROPs handle the rendering load. The result is that both components contribute meaningfully to performance at these resolutions, with neither becoming a clear bottleneck.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, provide context for its performance tier. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, which is 0.1 percent lower than the Intel Core i5-12400's 18683 average score. The Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730, 0.3 percent higher, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811, 0.7 percent higher. The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, which is 0.9 percent lower. These deltas are all within one percent, indicating that the i5-12400 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster where no single rival offers a meaningful advantage.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show a similar pattern. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23061, 0.2 percent higher than the Arc B580's 23021 average score. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, 0.6 percent lower, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172, 0.7 percent higher. The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249, which is 1 percent higher. These small deltas mean that swapping the Arc B580 for any of these alternatives would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The practical implication is that users with any of these nearby CPUs or GPUs can expect similar performance characteristics. A system with an Intel Core i3-14100F instead of the i5-12400 would perform within one percent, which translates to a difference of less than 1 FPS in most scenarios. Similarly, swapping the Arc B580 for a GeForce RTX 2080 would produce nearly identical results, despite the significant generational gap between these cards.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 2839 out of 3714 tested configurations, placing it in the 76th percentile of all tested combos. This means that roughly 24 percent of tested combinations perform better, while 76 percent perform worse. The rank reflects a system that is solidly mid-pack, capable of running the game at acceptable settings but not competitive with high-end configurations.

The percentile ranking is consistent with the individual component percentiles. The CPU sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs. The combined rank of 76th percentile is slightly better than either individual component percentile, suggesting that the pairing works reasonably well together for this specific game.

The rank also indicates that this combination is better suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming than for higher resolutions. The measured FPS data supports this, as the system clears the 60 FPS threshold at medium settings in both 1080p and 1440p, but fails to reach playable frame rates at 4K under any settings preset.

The Verdict

This system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the experience depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the combination achieves playable frame rates at Low and Medium settings, with Medium providing the best balance of visual quality and performance at 74.9 FPS. At 2560x1440, playable performance is limited to Low and Medium settings, with Medium producing 62.8 FPS, narrowly clearing the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot achieve playable frame rates under any settings preset. The closest result is Low settings at 57.1 FPS, which falls 2.9 FPS short of the playability threshold. This means users with 4K displays would need to either reduce their resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

The verdict data confirms this assessment, listing no playable settings at 4K, while 1440p and 1080p both support Low and Medium settings as playable. The best playable settings are Medium at both 1440p and 1080p, with average FPS of 62.8 and 74.9 respectively.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best settings that maintain at least 60 FPS are Medium, which produces an average of 74.9 FPS. This provides 14.9 FPS of headroom above the playability threshold, allowing for some performance dips during demanding scenes. Low settings produce 95.1 FPS but sacrifice significant visual quality, while High and Ultra settings fall below 60 FPS at 57.3 and 55.5 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, the best playable settings are also Medium, with an average of 62.8 FPS. This leaves only 2.8 FPS of headroom, meaning performance could dip below 60 FPS during particularly demanding moments such as flying over dense urban areas or during heavy weather effects. Low settings produce 76.4 FPS and provide more safety margin, but Medium offers substantially better visual quality for a relatively small performance cost.

At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The best option is Low at 57.1 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Users at this resolution would need to consider either lowering the resolution to 1440p or accepting frame rates in the 50s range. The data shows that the step from Low to Medium at 4K costs 13.9 FPS, making even modest visual improvements prohibitively expensive at this resolution.