Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates across resolutions reveal a system that scales predictably with pixel count, but with an interesting wrinkle at the top end. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 107.1 FPS, which drops to 82.7 FPS at 1440p and then to 63.4 FPS at 4K. That represents a 22.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 23.3% drop from 1440p to 4K. The scaling is nearly linear, suggesting that neither the CPU nor the GPU is hitting a hard wall; instead, the workload is increasing proportionally with pixel count.

However, look at the Ultra preset, and the picture changes. At 1080p Ultra, the system manages 57.8 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it falls to 44.6 FPS — a 22.8% reduction. But at 4K Ultra, the frame rate collapses to 31.5 FPS, a 29.4% drop from 1440p. That steeper decline at the highest resolution and quality tier points to the GPU becoming the primary bottleneck. The RX 6650 XT's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus are being saturated by the combination of 4K resolution and maxed-out settings.

The Low preset tells a different story. From 1080p Low (107.1 FPS) to 1440p Low (82.7 FPS) is a 22.8% drop, but from 1440p Low to 4K Low (63.4 FPS) is only a 23.3% drop. This consistency suggests that at Low settings, the limiting factor shifts more toward the CPU. The Intel Core i3-12100F, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is likely holding the system back at lower resolutions where the GPU has headroom. The data indicates that at 1080p Low, the CPU is the ceiling — the frame rate is high, but not as high as the GPU alone could probably push.

At Medium settings, the scaling is remarkably even: 79.7 FPS at 1080p, 63.7 FPS at 1440p, and 44.6 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 20.1% and 30.0%, respectively. This suggests a balanced workload where both CPU and GPU are contributing to the bottleneck. The i3-12100F's single-thread performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1681, is strong enough to keep feeding the GPU at these settings without becoming the dominant constraint.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT operates with a base clock of 2055 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz. These clocks are relatively high for the RDNA 2.0 architecture, and the card's 2048 shading units are kept busy in Microsoft Flight Simulator's demanding rendering pipeline. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s, which proves adequate for most scenarios but becomes a limiting factor at 4K Ultra.

The GPU's percentile ranking is 72, placing it above the majority of tested graphics cards. Its average benchmark score of 29024 puts it in close competition with the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (0.1% delta). Interestingly, the Intel Arc A370M scores slightly higher at 29175 (-0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is at 29197 (-0.6% delta). This clustering indicates that the RX 6650 XT sits in a very competitive mid-range tier.

In this specific game, the GPU's role is more pronounced at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the system drops to 31.5 FPS, which is below the playable threshold for a flight simulator that requires smooth camera panning. The 4K High setting yields 36.5 FPS, still marginal. The GPU's 64 ROPs and 128 TMUs are working hard, but the pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s are insufficient for 4K with high detail levels in this title.

The card's FP32 performance of 10.79 TFLOPS is respectable, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy use of procedural generation and complex shaders taxes the GPU's compute units. The 32 RT cores are present but largely unused in this title, which does not employ ray tracing as a primary feature. The data suggests that the GPU is best utilized at 1080p and 1440p, where it can maintain playable frame rates even at High settings.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1182 out of 1795 combos. That places it in the 65.8th percentile — better than the median, but not a standout performer. The ranking reflects a fundamental mismatch: the CPU is a budget quad-core part (percentile 72 among all CPUs), while the GPU is a mid-range card (percentile 72 among all GPUs). Neither is a flagship, and the combo's rank reflects that.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (avg score 13534, deltaPct -0.1%), which is remarkable because that is a workstation-class processor with far more cores. The i3-12100F's avg benchmark score of 13516 is within 0.1% of the Threadripper, indicating that for this game's workload, raw single-thread performance matters more than core count. The Intel Core i7-1250U (13462, 0.4% delta) and Intel Core i3-10105 (13430, 0.6% delta) are also close, showing that the 12th-gen architecture's efficiency is on par with older parts.

The GPU's nearest rivals show a similarly tight cluster. The RX 6650 XT's 29024 average score is essentially tied with the RX 6800M (29011, 0% delta) and RX 470 (28996, 0.1% delta). The Intel Arc A370M (29175, -0.5% delta) and RX Vega M GH (29197, -0.6% delta) are marginally ahead. This means the GPU is performing exactly as expected for its class — no surprises, no exceptional gains.

The combo's rank of 1182 out of 1795 suggests that many other pairings achieve higher frame rates in this game. This is likely due to the CPU's limited thread count, as Microsoft Flight Simulator can utilize more than 4 cores in certain scenarios, even if single-thread performance is the primary driver. The data shows that this combo is firmly mid-pack, capable but not exceptional.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 107.1 FPS — the only settings tier that breaks the 100 FPS barrier. However, the Medium preset at 79.7 FPS is still highly playable and offers a significant visual upgrade. High at 61.7 FPS is acceptable for a flight simulator, where the gameplay is not twitch-reflex dependent. Ultra at 57.8 FPS is borderline; it is playable but may feel slightly less smooth during fast camera movements.

At 1440p, the story is similar but with lower headroom. Low settings yield 82.7 FPS, which is excellent. Medium at 63.7 FPS is the sweet spot — it maintains a smooth frame rate while providing better visual fidelity. High at 48.3 FPS is playable but not ideal, and Ultra at 44.6 FPS dips into the low end of acceptable.

At 4K, the options narrow considerably. Low settings produce 63.4 FPS, which is the only truly playable option. Medium at 44.6 FPS is marginal, High at 36.5 FPS is barely acceptable, and Ultra at 31.5 FPS is too choppy for a smooth experience. The data strongly suggests that 4K should be reserved for Low settings, or the user should accept lower frame rates with higher visual quality.

The best overall recommendation is 1440p Medium, which balances the CPU and GPU loads while providing a frame rate (63.7 FPS) that is smooth enough for flight simulation. For users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate, 1080p Ultra at 57.8 FPS is viable. The data indicates that the combo is most comfortable at 1080p and 1440p, with 4K only suitable for the Low preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is as follows:

3840x2160 (4K):

• Ultra: 31.5 FPS
• High: 36.5 FPS
• Medium: 44.6 FPS
• Low: 63.4 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Ultra: 44.6 FPS
• High: 48.3 FPS
• Medium: 63.7 FPS
• Low: 82.7 FPS

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Ultra: 57.8 FPS
• High: 61.7 FPS
• Medium: 79.7 FPS
• Low: 107.1 FPS

At 1080p, the progression from Low to Ultra shows a 45.9% reduction in frame rate. At 1440p, the reduction from Low to Ultra is 46.1%. At 4K, the reduction is 50.3%. This widening gap at higher resolutions reinforces the GPU bottleneck conclusion. The 4K Low frame rate of 63.4 FPS is actually higher than the 1080p Ultra frame rate of 57.8 FPS, which demonstrates how much headroom exists at lower settings.

The jump from Medium to High at 1440p is only 15.9 FPS (63.7 to 48.3), while the jump from High to Ultra is just 3.7 FPS (48.3 to 44.6). This indicates diminishing returns at the top end — the visual improvement from High to Ultra likely does not justify the frame rate cost. Similarly, at 1080p, the difference between High (61.7) and Ultra (57.8) is minimal, making High the more sensible choice if frame rate stability is a priority.

The data also shows that the CPU's 4-core/8-thread configuration does not prevent the system from reaching high frame rates at lower resolutions. The 107.1 FPS at 1080p Low demonstrates that the i3-12100F's single-thread performance is sufficient for this title at reduced settings. However, the 57.8 FPS at 1080p Ultra suggests that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as settings increase. This is the expected behavior for a balanced mid-range pairing.