Microsoft Flight Simulator

This PC combination delivers a remarkably consistent experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with every tested setting preset at every resolution clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold. The data shows an RTX 4080 SUPER paired with an i7-12700KF produces a system that is effectively overqualified for this title at 1080p and 1440p, while still holding strong at 4K with only a modest drop from Ultra to High settings. The benchmark results indicate that this is a top-tier pairing for the flight sim, ranking 280th out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the top 8% of all systems measured. What follows is a breakdown of how this hardware behaves across resolutions and presets, where it sits relative to near-identical alternatives, and which component is doing the heavy lifting in various scenarios.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data for this combination is notable for its completeness — every resolution and every preset was tested, and no minimum or maximum frame rate data was recorded, only averages. That said, the average frame rates tell a clear story about scaling and headroom.

At 1920x1080, the system is almost laughably over-powered for this simulation. Low settings produce an average of 211.1 FPS, which is more than three times the playable threshold. Medium settings drop to 161.6 FPS, still a massive margin above 60. High settings yield 121.3 FPS, and even the most demanding Ultra preset averages 115.8 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is about 95 FPS, indicating that the GPU has so much headroom at this resolution that even the heaviest preset barely stresses it. The step from High to Ultra is relatively gentle — a 5.5 FPS drop — suggesting diminishing returns in visual fidelity versus performance at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scales down predictably but remains exceptionally strong. Low settings average 168.1 FPS, Medium hits 128.5 FPS, High delivers 96.7 FPS, and Ultra sits at 95.4 FPS. Notice that the gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 1.3 FPS — nearly identical performance, which suggests the Ultra preset is not adding much additional GPU load over High at this resolution. The drop from Low to Ultra is 72.7 FPS, a substantial reduction but still leaving a 35 FPS cushion above the 60 FPS target. This resolution is where the system starts to feel like it is working, but only mildly so.

At 3840x2160, the picture changes. Ultra averages 70.1 FPS, which is above 60 but with only 10 FPS of headroom. High settings produce 69.8 FPS — essentially identical to Ultra, which is curious. Medium delivers 96.7 FPS, and Low jumps to 120.7 FPS. The most interesting data point here is that Ultra and High are within 0.3 FPS of each other at 4K, which strongly implies a CPU or engine limitation rather than a GPU bottleneck at the highest presets. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 50.6 FPS, the smallest relative range of any resolution, indicating that the system is hitting a performance ceiling that is not purely GPU-bound.

Across all resolutions, the scaling from 1080p to 4K at Ultra shows a drop from 115.8 to 70.1 FPS — a 39.5% reduction. That is a significant hit, but the absolute numbers remain playable. Low settings scale even more dramatically, from 211.1 FPS at 1080p to 120.7 FPS at 4K, a 43% reduction. The data indicates that the performance ceiling at 4K Ultra is not a hard wall but a soft limit imposed by the simulation's engine.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark database places this CPU and GPU in specific positions relative to their nearest rivals, and those comparisons help contextualize what a buyer might expect from near-identical hardware.

For the Intel Core i7-12700KF, the average benchmark score is 35365, which puts it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival is the Intel Core i7-13700T, which scores 35403 — a delta of just -0.1%, meaning the 12700KF is effectively tied with that newer, lower-power part. The Intel Core i5-13600T scores 35305, a 0.2% delta, again within noise. The Intel Core 5 213PE scores 35428, a -0.2% delta, and the Intel Core i7-12700K scores 35287, a 0.2% delta. What this means in practice: if you swapped the 12700KF for any of these four chips, the in-game performance difference would be imperceptible. The 12700K is literally the same silicon with a different power profile, and the 13700T and 13600T are newer but similarly binned. None of these alternatives would change the FPS numbers in Microsoft Flight Simulator by more than a fraction of a frame.

For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, the average benchmark score is 54209, placing it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the standard RTX 4080, which scores 54247 — a -0.1% delta. That is a virtual tie, and in real-world gaming, the two cards are interchangeable. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54828, a -1.1% delta, which is still within a margin that would not produce a noticeable FPS difference. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55698, a -2.7% delta, and the AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55757, a -2.8% delta. While the AMD cards score higher on synthetic benchmarks, the deltas are small enough that in a simulation like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is heavily optimized for NVIDIA hardware, the RTX 4080 SUPER would likely match or beat them in actual gameplay. The practical takeaway: any of these GPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in this title.

CPU and GPU Roles

Determining which component matters more in Microsoft Flight Simulator requires looking at how performance scales across resolutions and presets, and the data shows a clear pattern of GPU dominance at lower settings that shifts toward CPU/engine limits at higher resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the GPU is almost entirely responsible for the frame rate. The jump from Low (211.1 FPS) to Ultra (115.8 FPS) is nearly a 2x reduction, which is classic GPU-bound scaling. The CPU has enough headroom at this resolution to feed the GPU at maximum rates, but the GPU is still the limiting factor because the visual load increases with each preset. The fact that Ultra only drops 5.5 FPS from High suggests that at 1080p, the Ultra preset is not adding much additional GPU work — likely because the engine is already delivering high frame rates that the CPU can sustain.

At 2560x1440, the GPU continues to dominate, but the pattern shifts slightly. The drop from Low (168.1 FPS) to Ultra (95.4 FPS) is 72.7 FPS, a smaller absolute reduction than at 1080p but a similar percentage. The near-identical performance between High (96.7 FPS) and Ultra (95.4 FPS) at 1440p is a strong signal that the CPU is starting to become a co-limiting factor. When the GPU load increases from High to Ultra, the frame rate barely moves, meaning the CPU cannot push more frames regardless of GPU capability.

At 3840x2160, the CPU's role becomes even more apparent. Ultra (70.1 FPS) and High (69.8 FPS) are statistically identical, while Medium (96.7 FPS) is significantly higher. This pattern — where the two heaviest presets produce the same FPS but Medium is much faster — indicates that the simulation's engine has a hard CPU or single-thread limit around 70 FPS when complex scenery and weather are rendered. The GPU is not the bottleneck at 4K Ultra because dropping from Ultra to High (which reduces GPU load) does not increase FPS. The CPU is the wall.

The resolution scaling itself tells the same story. From 1080p to 4K at Ultra, the FPS drops from 115.8 to 70.1, a 39.5% reduction. That is a significant GPU-driven drop, but the fact that the 4K Ultra and High numbers are identical (70.1 vs 69.8) suggests that the GPU is only just becoming the limiting factor at 4K, while the CPU is already maxed out. In practical terms: at 1080p and 1440p, the GPU matters most; at 4K with Ultra or High settings, the CPU is the primary constraint.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra is 70.1 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. However, the margin is only about 10 FPS, so expect occasional dips in crowded airspace or heavy weather.

Q: Is there a big difference between High and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: No. The data shows 69.8 FPS at High and 70.1 FPS at Ultra — a 0.3 FPS difference. This indicates the CPU is the limiting factor at these settings, not the GPU, so you gain nothing by dropping from Ultra to High at 4K.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system in this game?

A: 2560x1440 is the sweet spot. At Ultra settings it averages 95.4 FPS, a 35 FPS cushion above the 60 FPS threshold, while 4K Ultra leaves only 10 FPS of headroom. The 1440p experience is smooth and visually rich without the risk of drops.

Q: How does the RTX 4080 SUPER compare to the regular RTX 4080 for this game?

A: The two GPUs are effectively identical in performance. The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 54209 on average benchmarks versus 54247 for the RTX 4080, a -0.1% delta. You would not notice any FPS difference between them in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU at any resolution?

A: Yes, at 4K with High or Ultra settings. The fact that High (69.8 FPS) and Ultra (70.1 FPS) produce nearly identical frame rates at 4K indicates a CPU bottleneck, because reducing GPU load does not increase FPS. At 1080p and 1440p, the GPU is the primary driver.

Q: Is Low settings ever needed for playability?

A: No. Even at 4K, Low settings produce 120.7 FPS — double the playable threshold. All four presets at all three resolutions tested (1080p, 1440p, 4K) stay above 60 FPS, so there is no scenario where you must use Low settings to make the game playable.

The Verdict

This system can absolutely run Microsoft Flight Simulator, and it does so with authority. The verdictByResolution data confirms that all four settings presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) are playable at every resolution tested. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the lowest average measured was 69.8 FPS (4K High), which is still nearly 10 FPS above that mark.

At 1920x1080, the system is overkill. Ultra settings average 115.8 FPS, which is nearly double the threshold, and Low settings hit 211.1 FPS. This resolution is smooth in every scenario.

At 2560x1440, the system is in its element. Ultra settings average 95.4 FPS, providing a comfortable 35 FPS cushion. Even the most demanding preset leaves plenty of headroom for complex scenery or add-on aircraft.

At 3840x2160, the system is still capable but the margin narrows. Ultra averages 70.1 FPS and High averages 69.8 FPS, both above 60 but with only a 10 FPS buffer. Medium (96.7 FPS) and Low (120.7 FPS) are much faster, but you would not need to drop below Ultra unless you are sensitive to frame time variance in dense urban environments.

The overall rank of 280 out of 3714 combinations (top 7.5%) reflects that this is a high-end pairing that performs well above the median. For a flight simulator that is notoriously demanding on both CPU and GPU, this combination delivers a consistently playable experience at all settings, with the only caveat being that 4K Ultra has modest headroom.

Best Settings per Resolution

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at each resolution is, in every case, Ultra. There is no resolution where you are forced to compromise.

At 1920x1080, use Ultra — it averages 115.8 FPS. This is the highest visual quality with a huge safety margin. You could even enable additional rendering scaling or higher anti-aliasing if the game offers it, since you have 55 FPS of headroom above the threshold.

At 2560x1440, use Ultra — it averages 95.4 FPS. This is the recommended configuration for this system. The visual quality is maximum, the frame rate is well above 60, and there is enough headroom for stutter-free scenery loading.

At 3840x2160, use Ultra — it averages 70.1 FPS. This is the only resolution where the Ultra preset is close to the threshold, but it still clears it by 10 FPS. If you prefer a larger safety buffer, Medium at 96.7 FPS is an option, but the data shows Ultra is playable. The near-identical performance between Ultra and High (70.1 vs 69.8 FPS) means there is no reason to drop to High; you get the same frame rate with better visuals.