Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER lands at rank 2646 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower half of the database, which is not surprising for a mid-range pairing from 2022 and 2019 respectively. The CPU sits at the 73rd percentile against all processors, while the GPU is at the 62nd percentile against all graphics cards. In practical terms, this combo is positioned well below the top quartile of systems tested for this flight sim, but it is far from the bottom of the barrel.

The rank becomes more meaningful when you consider the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a title that rewards both strong single-thread CPU work and substantial GPU rasterization power. The i5-12400F provides 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, which gives it respectable single-thread performance for a modern desktop chip. The RTX 2060 SUPER, meanwhile, offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 2176 shading units and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. Those specifications are adequate for 1080p and 1440p gaming, but they struggle at 4K in this specific simulator.

The data shows that this combo only achieves playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, and only on Low or Medium settings. At 4K, no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. That places this system firmly in the mid-range category for this game: capable of smooth flight at mainstream resolutions with reduced graphical fidelity, but not a high-end setup by any stretch. The rank of 2646 out of 3714 means roughly 29% of tested combos perform worse, while about 71% perform better. For a builder with this hardware, the takeaway is clear: this is a playable but not luxurious experience, and settings management is essential.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Intel Core i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19039. The closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with a score of 19047 and a delta of 0%, the Intel Core 3 201E at 19056 with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18982 with a delta of 0.3%, and the AMD EPYC 7773X at 18979 with a delta of 0.3%. These differences are negligible, meaning any of these processors would behave nearly identically in this game when paired with the same GPU. The Ryzen 5 7535HS is a mobile part, but its benchmark parity suggests the i5-12400F is roughly equivalent to a mid-range laptop CPU in multi-threaded workloads, which is relevant for a sim that can use multiple cores.

For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER averages 18093 in benchmark scores. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile at 18159 with a delta of -0.4%, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18189 with a delta of -0.5%, the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18373 with a delta of -1.5%, and the Intel Arc A770M at 18383 with a delta of -1.6%. The RTX 3060 Mobile is the most direct comparison, and the delta is so small that a user swapping between these two would see virtually identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Radeon Pro 5700 is a workstation card, but its gaming performance here would be similar. The RX 460 and Arc A770M are also within 1.6% of the RTX 2060 SUPER according to the recorded data, which is surprising given their different architectures but consistent with the benchmark averages.

What this means for the builder is that if you have any of these alternative components, the experience in this game would be within a couple of percent of the i5-12400F and RTX 2060 SUPER combination. None of these rivals would push the combo into a higher playable tier, nor would they drop it below the 60 FPS threshold at the same settings. The performance profile is tightly clustered, so the choice between these parts matters little for this specific title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i5-12400F and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER in Microsoft Flight Simulator becomes clear when examining the frame rate scaling across resolutions and presets. At 1080p, the CPU has more influence because the GPU is not as heavily taxed. The frame rate drops from 99.2 FPS on Low to 80.8 FPS on Medium, then to 56.8 FPS on High, and finally to 53.6 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 18.4 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 24 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is already becoming the limiting factor at 1080p High, since the CPU can maintain higher frame rates at lower settings but the GPU cannot keep up as the pixel workload increases.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts further toward GPU limitation. Low settings produce 79 FPS, Medium drops to 64.1 FPS, High falls to 46.8 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 47.7 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 14.9 FPS, which is smaller than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is now the primary constraint even at Medium. The jump from Medium to High is 17.3 FPS, and the jump from High to Ultra is only 0.9 FPS, which is within measurement noise. This flattening at the top end suggests that both components are saturated, and additional GPU load from Ultra settings cannot be translated into meaningful frame rate differences because the CPU is also near its limit.

At 4K, the GPU dominates the performance picture completely. Low settings yield 59.3 FPS, Medium drops to 44.4 FPS, High falls to 34.5 FPS, and Ultra produces 36 FPS. The scaling here is steep: the gap between Low and Medium is 14.9 FPS, and the gap between Medium and High is 9.9 FPS. Notably, High and Ultra are nearly identical, with only a 1.5 FPS difference. This tells us that at 4K, the RTX 2060 SUPER is the bottleneck regardless of settings, and the CPU has ample headroom. The i5-12400F can feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but at 4K the GPU simply cannot render the scene fast enough to approach 60 FPS except on Low.

The practical takeaway is that at 1080p and 1440p, the user should focus on GPU settings first, because lowering resolution or graphical presets will yield the largest gains. At 4K, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor, and even dropping to Low settings only reaches 59.3 FPS, just short of the 60 FPS target. This means the RTX 2060 SUPER is the decisive component for 4K playability, and no CPU upgrade would change that outcome.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: No. At 4K, the highest average frame rate recorded is 59.3 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 44.4, 34.5, and 36 FPS respectively. The verdict for 3840x2160 lists no playable settings.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1440p?

A: Medium is the best playable preset at 2560x1440, with an average of 64.1 FPS. Low also works at 79 FPS, but Medium offers higher visual quality while staying above 60 FPS. High and Ultra fall short at 46.8 and 47.7 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important at 1080p?

A: The GPU becomes the limiting factor at 1080p High and Ultra. The frame rate drops from 80.8 FPS on Medium to 56.8 FPS on High, a 24 FPS loss, while Ultra only drops another 3.2 FPS. The CPU can sustain higher frame rates at Low and Medium, but the GPU cannot push past 56.8 FPS at High.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 2646 out of 3714 combos. This places it in the lower half of the database, with roughly 71% of tested systems performing better in this game.

Q: What GPU would perform similarly to the RTX 2060 SUPER?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 18159, a delta of -0.4% from the RTX 2060 SUPER. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 and AMD Radeon RX 460 are also within 1.5%, and the Intel Arc A770M is within 1.6%. Any of these would behave nearly identically.

Q: Is 4K playable with any settings on this combo?

A: No. The closest is Low at 59.3 FPS, which is 0.7 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The database records no playable settings at 3840x2160 for this pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements cover three resolutions and four settings presets each, for a total of twelve data points. All figures are average frame rates, as the database does not list minimum or maximum values for this game.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo produces 99.2 FPS on Low settings. Medium drops to 80.8 FPS, High falls to 56.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 53.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 18.4 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 24 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 3.2 FPS, indicating a diminishing return on the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are lower across the board. Low settings yield 79 FPS, Medium produces 64.1 FPS, High drops to 46.8 FPS, and Ultra reaches 47.7 FPS. The interesting inversion here is that Ultra is actually 0.9 FPS higher than High, which is within measurement variance. The drop from Medium to High is 17.3 FPS, which is the largest single-step loss at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution, the numbers fall further. Low settings average 59.3 FPS, Medium drops to 44.4 FPS, High falls to 34.5 FPS, and Ultra produces 36 FPS. Again, Ultra is slightly higher than High, this time by 1.5 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 14.9 FPS, and the step from Medium to High is 9.9 FPS. None of these presets reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Looking at the scaling from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings, Low drops by 20.2 FPS, Medium by 16.7 FPS, High by 10 FPS, and Ultra by 5.9 FPS. From 1440p to 4K, Low drops by 19.7 FPS, Medium by 19.7 FPS, High by 12.3 FPS, and Ultra by 11.7 FPS. The consistent pattern is that lower settings suffer larger absolute drops when resolution increases, because the GPU is more heavily loaded at lower settings and the resolution increase adds proportionally more work.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the best settings preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 80.8 FPS. Low is also playable at 99.2 FPS, but Medium provides a better visual experience while still leaving 20.8 FPS of headroom above the 60 FPS threshold. High and Ultra are not playable, as they produce 56.8 and 53.6 FPS respectively.

For 2560x1440, the best playable preset is also Medium, with an average of 64.1 FPS. This leaves only 4.1 FPS of headroom above the threshold, so users who want a safety margin might prefer Low at 79 FPS. High and Ultra are not playable, with 46.8 and 47.7 FPS respectively.

For 3840x2160, there is no playable preset. The closest is Low at 59.3 FPS, which falls 0.7 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 44.4, 34.5, and 36 FPS, all well below playable. The verdict in the database confirms this, listing no playable settings at this resolution.

In practical terms, a user with this combo should target 1080p Medium for the best balance of visual quality and performance, or 1440p Medium if they prioritize resolution over settings. At 4K, the system cannot maintain playable frame rates on any preset, so the recommendation is to avoid this resolution unless the user is willing to accept frame rates below 60 FPS. The data consistently shows that Medium is the sweet spot for this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator, providing the highest visual fidelity that still meets the playable threshold at both 1080p and 1440p.