Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 delivers a definitive verdict for Microsoft Flight Simulator: this combination runs the game with commanding performance at every tested resolution, clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold even at the highest Ultra preset. The data shows a system that is never constrained by the CPU at lower resolutions, with the GPU scaling predictably as resolution increases, resulting in a smooth experience across all settings. Benchmark results indicate that at 1920x1080, the combo achieves an average of 132.2 FPS on Ultra, while at 2560x1440 it maintains 104.3 FPS on the same preset, and at 3840x2160 it still delivers a robust 78.8 FPS on Ultra.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance scaling across the four settings presets—Low, Medium, High, and Ultra—at three resolutions. All figures represent average FPS, as min and max values were not recorded. At 1920x1080, the combo starts at 186 FPS on Low, drops to 166 FPS on Medium, further to 142.1 FPS on High, and reaches 132.2 FPS on Ultra. This represents a 53.8 FPS difference between the lowest and highest presets, indicating that the GPU is still the primary driver of performance even at this resolution, with settings impacting the frame rate by roughly 29%. The transition from Low to Ultra shows a consistent, though non-linear, decline, with the largest single-step drop occurring between Low and Medium at 20 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the same pattern holds but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings produce 172.2 FPS, Medium yields 149.9 FPS, High drops to 110.9 FPS, and Ultra maintains 104.3 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 67.9 FPS, a wider margin than at 1080p, which suggests that the increased pixel count amplifies the cost of higher-quality settings. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 6.6 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset's additional demands are relatively minor compared to the jump from Medium to High, which costs 39 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the performance remains highly playable but shows the greatest sensitivity to settings. Low delivers 137.6 FPS, Medium drops to 107.4 FPS, High falls to 80.4 FPS, and Ultra lands at 78.8 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 58.8 FPS, with the most significant single-step reduction occurring between Medium and High at 27 FPS. The small 1.6 FPS difference between High and Ultra at 4K mirrors the pattern seen at 1440p, confirming that the Ultra preset's incremental cost over High is minimal at higher resolutions. Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently provides a frame rate well above 130 FPS, making it an option for very high refresh rate displays, although the Ultra preset remains comfortably above 60 FPS everywhere.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, the data confirms playable performance at 3840x2160 on all four tested presets. The Ultra preset averages 78.8 FPS, which is 18.8 FPS above the 60 FPS playability threshold, while Low settings reach 137.6 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a 1440p monitor?

A: At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset is the best choice, delivering an average of 104.3 FPS. This is 44.3 FPS above the 60 FPS threshold, allowing for a fully maxed-out visual experience without compromising smoothness.

Q: How much performance is lost when switching from 1080p to 4K on Ultra settings?

A: The average FPS drops from 132.2 at 1920x1080 to 78.8 at 3840x2160 on the Ultra preset. This represents a 53.4 FPS reduction, or roughly a 40% decrease, when moving from the lowest to the highest tested resolution.

Q: Is the CPU a bottleneck at 1080p with this GPU?

A: The data indicates that the CPU is not a limiting factor. At 1920x1080, the frame rates are exceptionally high across all presets, with the lowest being 132.2 FPS on Ultra. This suggests the RTX 5090 is still the performance limiter, as the CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU effectively.

Q: Which resolution shows the largest performance gap between Low and Ultra settings?

A: The largest absolute gap between Low and Ultra occurs at 2560x1440, where the difference is 67.9 FPS (172.2 FPS vs. 104.3 FPS). At 1920x1080 the gap is 53.8 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it is 58.8 FPS.

Q: Does the Ultra preset provide a significant advantage over High at 4K?

A: No, the performance difference is minimal. At 3840x2160, High averages 80.4 FPS while Ultra averages 78.8 FPS, a difference of only 1.6 FPS. This suggests that the visual gains from Ultra over High come at a negligible performance cost.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals a classic scaling pattern where the GPU becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises, while the CPU's role is more pronounced at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are high across all settings, ranging from 132.2 FPS on Ultra to 186 FPS on Low. This high absolute performance, coupled with a relatively narrow 53.8 FPS spread between settings, indicates that while the GPU is still the primary renderer, the CPU is capable of keeping up with the RTX 5090's demands. The fact that the Ultra preset at 1080p still exceeds 130 FPS suggests that the Core i5-12400F's six cores and 12 threads are sufficient to avoid creating a bottleneck at this resolution.

As resolution increases to 2560x1440, the performance gap between settings widens, with the difference between Low and Ultra growing to 67.9 FPS. This widening gap is a direct result of the GPU working harder to fill more pixels, making the graphics card the clear limiting factor. The CPU's workload per frame remains relatively constant, but the GPU's rendering time increases, making the system more sensitive to preset changes. The relatively small 6.6 FPS difference between High and Ultra at this resolution further supports the idea that the GPU's shading and texture work, rather than CPU-side tasks, are driving the performance changes.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's dominance becomes even more pronounced. The absolute frame rates drop across all settings, with Ultra at 78.8 FPS and Low at 137.6 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 4K on the Ultra preset shows a 25.5 FPS decrease, which is proportionally larger than the 27.9 FPS decrease seen when moving from 1080p to 1440p. This confirms that the RTX 5090 is the component that determines playability at 4K. However, the fact that even the most demanding preset stays above 60 FPS indicates that the CPU is not holding back the GPU, as a weaker processor would likely cause frame rates to dip below the threshold at this resolution. The data consistently shows that the GPU's performance scales with resolution and settings as expected, while the CPU maintains sufficient throughput to support it.

The Verdict

The verdict is unequivocal: this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level across all tested resolutions and presets. The playability threshold is set at 60 FPS, and every single configuration in the measured data exceeds this mark. At 3840x2160, the verdictByResolution data lists all four settings—High, Low, Medium, and Ultra—as playable, with the best settings being Ultra at an average of 78.8 FPS. This is 18.8 FPS above the threshold, providing a comfortable margin for demanding flight scenarios. At 2560x1440, the same four settings are playable, with Ultra again being the best choice, achieving 104.3 FPS, which is 44.3 FPS above the threshold. Finally, at 1920x1080, all settings are playable, and Ultra delivers 132.2 FPS, a 72.2 FPS surplus over the minimum requirement.

The performance headroom is substantial across the board. Even the weakest configuration tested—3840x2160 on Ultra at 78.8 FPS—offers nearly a third more performance than the 60 FPS target. This means users can expect a consistently smooth experience without needing to compromise on visual fidelity. The data confirms that the combination of the Core i5-12400F and RTX 5090 is more than adequate for this game, and the only scenario where a user might consider lowering settings is if they have a very high refresh rate display (e.g., 144Hz or higher) and wish to maximize frame rates beyond what Ultra provides at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

In the broader context of all tested hardware combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing performs exceptionally well. The comboRankInGame places this specific CPU-GPU pairing at rank 138 out of 3714 combinations. This puts it in the top 3.7% of all tested systems, a strong result that underscores its high-end positioning. The rank reflects the combined capability of the Core i5-12400F and the RTX 5090, which, as the measured FPS shows, is capable of delivering playable frame rates at 4K Ultra. This high rank is driven primarily by the GPU's raw performance, as the RTX 5090 sits at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79,842.

The CPU's contribution to this rank is also notable. The Core i5-12400F holds the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,039. Its nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with an average score of 19,047 (a 0% delta) and the Intel Core 3 201E with a score of 19,056 (a -0.1% delta). This indicates that the i5-12400F is in a competitive performance tier, though it is not a top-tier CPU in absolute terms. However, for this specific game, the CPU's performance is sufficient to avoid bottlenecking the RTX 5090, as evidenced by the high frame rates at 1080p. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB with a score of 79,605 (0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT with a score of 78,940 (1.1% delta), are all significantly behind in terms of raw compute, reinforcing the RTX 5090's position as a dominant force in this pairing.

Best Settings per Resolution

For users seeking the highest visual quality while maintaining a minimum of 60 FPS, the data points to the Ultra preset as the optimal choice at every resolution. At 1920x1080, the Ultra preset is the most demanding setting tested and delivers an average of 132.2 FPS, which is 72.2 FPS above the threshold. This makes it the clear best setting for 1080p, as there is no performance reason to drop to a lower preset. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset again provides the best balance, achieving 104.3 FPS. This is 44.3 FPS above the threshold, offering a significant margin that ensures smooth performance even in complex scenes with heavy scenery.

At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset remains the recommended choice, with an average of 78.8 FPS. While this is the lowest average FPS among the three resolutions, it still clears the 60 FPS threshold by 18.8 FPS. This margin is sufficient for a playable experience, although users who are sensitive to frame rate drops in dense areas might prefer the High preset, which averages 80.4 FPS. However, given the minimal 1.6 FPS difference between High and Ultra at this resolution, the Ultra preset is the better option for visual fidelity, as the performance cost is negligible. In summary, the most demanding preset—Ultra—is the best settings choice at all resolutions, as it consistently stays above the 60 FPS playability threshold, with the only caveat being a slightly smaller frame buffer at 4K.