Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 delivers a clear, resolution-dependent experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080, the combination clears the 60 FPS threshold at every preset, including Ultra at 71 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440, the system maintains playability at High, Medium, and Low, with High landing exactly at 60 FPS average. At 3840x2160, only the Low preset stays above 60 FPS, averaging 76 FPS, while Medium falls to 59 FPS average with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS. The data indicates a system that is fully capable at 1080p, marginally sufficient at 1440p with tweaks, and constrained at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that remains at or above 60 FPS is Ultra. The measured average FPS at Ultra is 71, which is 11 FPS above the playable threshold of 60. The data shows a comfortable margin, with no minimum FPS recorded for this preset, but the average suggests headroom. Lower presets perform progressively better: High averages 74 FPS, Medium averages 99 FPS with a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 114 FPS, and Low averages 127 FPS. For users prioritizing visual fidelity at 1080p, Ultra is the clear choice because it holds above 60 FPS while delivering the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is High, with an average of exactly 60 FPS. This is a borderline result, as any dip below the average would cross the 60 FPS threshold. The data records no minimum FPS for High at this resolution, but the exact average of 60 suggests limited headroom. Medium is safer, averaging 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS, providing a more consistent experience. Ultra at 1440p averages 57 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. Low averages 103 FPS. For the best visual quality that still clears 60 FPS, High is the answer, but users sensitive to frame drops may prefer Medium for its recorded minimum of 68 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 76 FPS. Medium is just below the threshold at 59 FPS average, with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS, meaning it dips below 60 during demanding scenes. High averages 44 FPS, and Ultra averages 42 FPS, both well below playable levels. The verdict for 4K is unambiguous: Low is the sole playable preset, and even then, the 76 FPS average provides some margin but not a large one. Users targeting 4K must accept Low settings to maintain a smooth frame rate.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals how the CPU and GPU divide responsibilities in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080, the CPU plays a more significant role because the GPU has ample headroom at lower resolutions. The frame rate differences between presets illustrate this: Low averages 127 FPS, Medium 99 FPS, High 74 FPS, and Ultra 71 FPS. The step from Low to Ultra reduces the average by 56 FPS, a 44% drop. Since the RTX 5060 is less stressed at 1080p, the Intel Core i5-12400’s six cores and twelve threads become a larger factor, particularly in simulation-heavy scenes where CPU logic dominates.

At 2560x1440, the GPU begins to take on more responsibility. The average FPS at Low is 103, at Medium 80, at High 60, and at Ultra 57. The gap between Low and Ultra is 46 FPS, a 45% reduction. Compared to 1080p, the absolute numbers are lower at every preset, which indicates the GPU is working harder to render more pixels. However, the CPU still matters, as the simulation logic in Microsoft Flight Simulator is computationally intensive. The i5-12400’s passmark multithread score of 18747 and single-thread score of 3456 support the CPU’s ability to keep up, but the data shows that GPU load becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is the dominant constraint. The average FPS at Low is 76, at Medium 59, at High 44, and at Ultra 42. The drop from Low to Ultra is 34 FPS, a 45% reduction, similar to lower resolutions, but the absolute values are much lower. The RTX 5060’s 8 GB of GDDR7 memory and 128-bit bus width may contribute to the 4K limitations, as the memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s is taxed by the higher pixel count. The CPU’s role diminishes because the GPU cannot render fast enough to expose CPU bottlenecks. In summary, the i5-12400 is sufficient across all resolutions, but the RTX 5060 dictates playability at 1440p and 4K.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings is 71, which exceeds the playable threshold of 60 FPS. No minimum FPS was recorded for this preset, but the average indicates a playable experience.

Q: What is the best preset for 2560x1440 to stay above 60 FPS?

A: High is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of exactly 60 FPS. Medium is a safer alternative, averaging 80 FPS with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. Ultra averages 57 FPS, which is below the threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: Only at Low settings. The average FPS at 3840x2160 with Low is 76, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 59 FPS with a minimum of 50 FPS, so it dips below playable levels. High and Ultra average 44 FPS and 42 FPS, respectively.

Q: How does the RTX 5060 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT?

A: The RTX 5060 has an average benchmark score of 26331, while the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT has an average score of 26011, a deltaPct of 1.2 percent. This means the RTX 5060 is 1.2 percent faster in average benchmark scores, a marginal difference.

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 ranks in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18683. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7643, scores 18697, a deltaPct of -0.1 percent, meaning the EPYC is slightly faster.

Q: Does the system maintain 60 FPS at 1440p Medium?

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 2560x1440 Medium is 80, with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. The minimum stays above the 60 FPS threshold, providing a consistent experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-12400’s nearest rivals provide context for what other CPUs would behave similarly. The AMD EPYC 7643 has an average benchmark score of 18697, a deltaPct of -0.1 percent from the i5-12400’s 18683, meaning it is essentially identical in performance. The Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730, a deltaPct of -0.3 percent, also nearly identical. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811, a deltaPct of -0.7 percent, slightly higher. The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, a deltaPct of 0.9 percent, meaning the i5-12400 is 0.9 percent faster. In practical terms, all four alternatives would produce similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with differences of less than one percent in synthetic benchmarks.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060’s nearest rivals show comparable performance. The AMD Radeon 860M has an average score of 26401, a deltaPct of -0.3 percent from the RTX 5060’s 26331, meaning the Radeon is 0.3 percent faster. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26421, a deltaPct of -0.3 percent, also marginally faster. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, a deltaPct of -0.8 percent, indicating it is 0.8 percent faster. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT scores 26011, a deltaPct of 1.2 percent, meaning the RTX 5060 is 1.2 percent faster. These deltas are all under two percent, so any of these GPUs would deliver nearly identical FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator, assuming no other bottlenecks.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested combinations in the benchmark database, this pairing of Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 ranks 1647 out of 3714 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 55th percentile of tested systems. The rank reflects the overall capability of the pair, not just the GPU or CPU individually. Given that the CPU ranks in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs and the GPU ranks in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, the combo’s mid-pack ranking is lower than either component’s individual percentile. This suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator’s specific demands—likely a mix of CPU-heavy simulation and GPU-heavy rendering—create a bottleneck that prevents the combo from achieving a higher rank. The 3714 total combos include more powerful configurations, so a rank of 1647 indicates a solid mid-range system that handles 1080p and 1440p well but struggles at 4K.

The Verdict

The data shows that this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable experience depends heavily on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is fully playable at all presets, with Ultra averaging 71 FPS, High 74 FPS, Medium 99 FPS, and Low 127 FPS. The verdict for 1080p lists all four presets as playable, with Ultra as the best setting at 71 FPS average. At 2560x1440, the playable settings are High, Medium, and Low, with High being the best at 60 FPS average. Ultra falls below the threshold at 57 FPS average. At 3840x2160, only Low is playable, averaging 76 FPS, while Medium, High, and Ultra all fail to reach 60 FPS, with averages of 59, 44, and 42 FPS, respectively.

For users with a 1080p monitor, this system is a strong performer, offering Ultra settings with a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold. For 1440p, the system is adequate but requires choosing High or Medium to avoid frame drops, as the Ultra preset averages just below 60 FPS. For 4K, the system is limited to Low settings, which still provides a playable 76 FPS average but sacrifices visual fidelity. The verdict is clear: this is a 1080p and 1440p machine, with 4K only feasible at the lowest preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured FPS data shows a wide range across presets. Low settings produce an average of 127 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings yield an average of 99 FPS, with a minimum of 84 FPS and a maximum of 114 FPS. High settings average 74 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Ultra settings average 71 FPS, also without recorded minimum or maximum values. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, but every preset stays above the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the FPS numbers drop as expected. Low settings average 103 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings average 80 FPS, with a minimum of 68 FPS and a maximum of 92 FPS. High settings average exactly 60 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded, indicating a borderline but playable result. Ultra settings average 57 FPS, which falls below the playable threshold. The minimum FPS for Medium at 68 confirms that even the lowest recorded frame rate clears 60 FPS for that preset.

At 3840x2160, the system’s limitations become apparent. Low settings average 76 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium settings average 59 FPS, with a minimum of 50 FPS and a maximum of 68 FPS, showing dips below 60 FPS. High settings average 44 FPS, and Ultra settings average 42 FPS, both well below playable levels. The minimum FPS of 50 at Medium highlights the variability at this resolution, where even the average of 59 is just under the threshold. The data for High and Ultra includes no minimum or maximum values, but the averages are sufficient to classify them as unplayable. Overall, the measured FPS breakdown confirms the resolution-based verdicts: 1080p is fully playable, 1440p is playable with settings adjustments, and 4K is only playable at Low.