Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i3-12100F pairs with the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT in Microsoft Flight Simulator, producing a combination that ranks in the 47th percentile of all tested system configurations. This pairing of a 4-core, 8-thread Alder Lake processor with a RDNA 2.0 graphics card delivers a playable experience across most settings, though the data reveals a consistent pattern where the CPU becomes the primary constraint at lower resolutions and the GPU takes over at 4K. The measured frame rates show a system that is well-balanced for high-refresh 1080p gaming but requires careful settings management for 4K displays.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on Alder Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a 12 MB shared L3 cache. This is a modest CPU by modern standards, sitting at the 72nd percentile against all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 13516. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which scores 13534 (0.1% higher), and the Intel Core i7-1250U at 13462 (0.4% lower), showing that the i3-12100F sits in a tightly contested performance band.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is heavily dependent on resolution. At 1080p, the processor's single-thread performance and 4-core design directly influence the frame rate ceiling. The benchmark data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the system reaches 127.8 FPS, which is the highest score recorded for this combination. This suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU is capable of feeding the GPU adequately, and the frame rate is not severely limited by the processor's 4 cores. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1681 and the 3DMark single-thread score of 893 indicate solid individual core performance, which is critical for a flight simulator that often relies on a primary simulation thread.

However, the CPU's limitations become apparent when comparing its multi-threaded capabilities. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11912 is respectable for a 4-core part, but the 3DMark 16-thread score of 4051 versus the 2-thread score of 1659 shows that scaling beyond 4 cores yields diminishing returns. This matters because Microsoft Flight Simulator can utilize additional threads for scenery loading and physics calculations. The data indicates that at 1440p and 4K, the frame rates drop significantly from the 1080p baseline, but the pattern of drops suggests the GPU is becoming the bottleneck rather than the CPU. The processor's 58W TDP and dual-channel memory support (DDR4 and DDR5) are standard for this class of CPU, but the lack of a higher core count means it cannot provide the same headroom as higher-tier processors in CPU-bound scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT achieves a combo rank of 845 out of 1795 tested system configurations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the middle of the pack, slightly below the median performance level. The rank of 845 indicates that roughly 53% of tested combos perform better, while 47% perform worse, making this a mid-tier setup for this particular game.

The GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT, is a 7 nm RDNA 2.0 part with 2560 shading units, 64 ROPs, and 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It scores at the 79th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35327. Its nearest rivals in GPU benchmarks are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which scores 35787 (1.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 35264 (0.2% lower). The GPU's strong performance is evident, but the combo rank of 845 is dragged down by the CPU's limitations in this title.

The data shows that this combo is not at the top of the leaderboard, but it is far from the bottom. The rank of 845 out of 1795 suggests that users with this setup will get a playable experience, but they will see lower frame rates than systems with higher-core-count CPUs or more powerful GPUs. The delta between the CPU's 72nd percentile ranking and the combo's 47th percentile ranking indicates that the processor is holding back the GPU in this specific workload. A system with a stronger CPU would likely achieve a higher combo rank, even with the same GPU, because Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to be sensitive to CPU performance for simulation logic.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of scaling from 1080p to 4K, with the frame rate dropping as resolution increases. At 1080p High settings, the system achieves 76.8 FPS, while at 1440p High, it drops to 60.6 FPS (a 21% reduction), and at 4K High, it falls to 42.5 FPS (a further 30% reduction from 1440p). This consistent drop indicates that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the number of pixels to render increases.

At 1080p Low settings, the system hits 127.8 FPS, which is the highest recorded frame rate. Moving to 1440p Low yields 104 FPS (an 18.6% drop), and 4K Low produces 73.9 FPS (a 29% drop from 1440p). The percentage drops are similar across settings levels, which suggests that the GPU's rendering workload scales predictably with resolution. However, the absolute frame rates at 4K are low enough to indicate that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU.

The scaling pattern also reveals information about the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the system is likely CPU-bound, as the GPU has relatively little work to do, yet the frame rate is capped at 127.8 FPS. This is a strong indicator that the i3-12100F's 4 cores are the ceiling at this resolution. As resolution increases to 4K, the GPU becomes the limiting factor, as evidenced by the frame rate dropping to 40.9 FPS at Ultra settings, which is below playable thresholds for smooth flight simulation. The data shows a system that is well-matched at 1440p, where the CPU and GPU are more balanced, but at 1080p the CPU holds back the GPU, and at 4K the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's demands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best performance. Low settings produce an average of 127.8 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all resolutions and settings. Medium settings yield 98.8 FPS, High settings give 76.8 FPS, and Ultra settings drop to 72.4 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 55.4 FPS, showing that the GPU has headroom at this resolution, and the CPU is the primary limiter, particularly at Low settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop but remain playable. Low settings average 104 FPS, Medium produces 79.4 FPS, High delivers 60.6 FPS, and Ultra yields 54.6 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 23.8 FPS (18.6%), while at Ultra settings the drop is 17.8 FPS (24.6%). This indicates that the GPU is starting to become more of a factor at 1440p, but the CPU still plays a role at lower settings.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain high frame rates. Low settings average 73.9 FPS, Medium yields 55.6 FPS, High produces 42.5 FPS, and Ultra drops to 40.9 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 33 FPS, which is the smallest absolute spread across resolutions, confirming that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck here. For a flight simulator, 40.9 FPS at 4K Ultra is marginal, and users would need to reduce settings to Medium (55.6 FPS) or Low (73.9 FPS) for a smoother experience. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p is CPU-limited, 4K is GPU-limited, and 1440p is the balance point.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 offers the best balance of performance and visual quality. At Medium settings, the combo achieves 79.4 FPS, while High yields 60.6 FPS. This is a significant improvement over 4K, where even High settings only reach 42.5 FPS, and it provides better fidelity than 1080p where the CPU limits the frame rate to 76.8 FPS on High.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is the limiting component at 1080p. At Low settings, the system reaches 127.8 FPS, but the frame rate does not scale as much as expected when moving from Medium to Ultra (98.8 to 72.4 FPS). The i3-12100F's 4 cores and 8 threads are the bottleneck, as the GPU has less work to do at this resolution.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 845 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 47th percentile, meaning just under half of all tested system configurations perform worse. The GPU alone ranks at the 79th percentile, but the CPU's lower ranking pulls the overall combo down.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The measured data shows an average of 40.9 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. This is the lowest frame rate recorded for this combo. For smoother performance, reducing to Medium settings at 4K yields 55.6 FPS, which is a 36% improvement.

Q: How does the i3-12100F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13516, which is 0.1% lower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13534) and 0.4% higher than the Intel Core i7-1250U (13462). It also outperforms the Intel Core i7-7700K (13280) by 1.8%. These are all close scores, indicating similar synthetic performance.

Q: Does this system provide a playable experience at 1440p High settings?

A: Yes, the data shows 60.6 FPS average at 2560x1440 with High settings. This is above the 60 FPS threshold commonly considered smooth for flight simulation. At Medium settings, the frame rate rises to 79.4 FPS, offering additional headroom for complex scenery.