Microsoft Flight Simulator

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S generation, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. It carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache and a 10 nm process node. In synthetic benchmarks, the chip posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11912 and a single-core score of 1681, while its Geekbench multi-core and single-core results are 7413 and 2224 respectively. The PassMark multi-thread score sits at 14015, with a single-thread score of 3444.

For a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's single-thread performance is critical because the simulation engine must process physics, weather, and flight dynamics sequentially before rendering can occur. The 4.30 GHz boost clock and the strong single-core Cinebench result (1681) suggest this processor can handle those serial workloads at 1080p, but the limited core count (4 cores, 8 threads) becomes a bottleneck at higher resolutions where the GPU is also under load. The CPU's percentile ranking versus all CPUs is 72, meaning it outperforms roughly three-quarters of tested processors in aggregate benchmarks.

When comparing against its nearest rivals, the i3-12100F's average benchmark score of 13516 places it nearly even with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (deltaPct of -0.1) and the Intel Core i7-1250U (deltaPct of 0.4). It is also just 1.8% ahead of the Intel Core i7-7700K. These deltas are small, indicating that the i3-12100F punches well above its core count in synthetic workloads, but in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS data reveals how the 4-core design interacts with the game's engine. The CPU's TDP is 58 W, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with PCIe Gen 5 connectivity on 16 lanes.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture (Navi 33 chip) using a 6 nm process from TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1720 MHz, with a boost clock of 2655 MHz and a game clock of 2250 MHz. Memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The card has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 32 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 compute is 21.75 TFLOPS, and it maintains a pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s alongside a texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s.

In synthetic benchmarks, the RX 7600 posts a PassMark G3D score of 16634 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 90825, with an OpenCL result of 82501. The GPU's percentile versus all GPUs is 63, placing it above the median. Compared with its nearest rivals, the RX 7600's average benchmark score of 20258 sits 0.6% below the RX 7600 XT, 0.8% above the RX 460, and 1.3% below the RTX 3070 Mobile. The Intel Arc B570 is 1.5% ahead. These small deltas suggest the RX 7600 is positioned in a tight performance cluster.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the 8 GB VRAM is a relevant factor because the simulator loads high-resolution terrain textures and aircraft models. At 1080p and 1440p, 8 GB is generally sufficient, but at 4K Ultra settings, the memory capacity can become a constraint. The GPU's boost clock of 2655 MHz provides strong raw throughput, yet the measured FPS data shows that the card's performance scales predictably with resolution and settings, indicating that the GPU is not the sole limiting factor in every configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 7600 ranks 1196 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower-middle portion of the database, at roughly the 33rd percentile of all CPU-GPU pairings tested for this game. The rank reflects a balance where neither component is exceptionally strong, but the pair is functional across most settings.

The ranking suggests that many other combinations deliver higher average FPS in this simulator. The i3-12100F's modest core count and the RX 7600's mid-range positioning combine to produce playable but not outstanding results. The data indicates that the combo is more competitive at lower resolutions and settings, where the CPU's single-thread strength can shine, but it falls behind at higher loads. The rank of 1196 out of 1795 also implies that users pairing a stronger CPU or GPU with the other component would see meaningful improvements, particularly at 1440p and 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS spans from 104.2 at Low settings down to 55.9 at Ultra. The Medium preset yields 78.2 FPS, while High delivers 59.9 FPS. These numbers show a clear progression: dropping from Ultra to Low nearly doubles the frame rate, from 55.9 to 104.2, a gain of 48.3 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is 18.3 FPS, and the step from High to Ultra reduces FPS by 4.0 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average FPS at Low is 81.2, Medium is 64.8, High is 49.6, and Ultra is 47.1. The spread from Low to Ultra is 34.1 FPS. The transition from High to Ultra is only 2.5 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at that settings tier. At 3840x2160, the averages drop further: Low produces 59.7 FPS, Medium 43.9 FPS, and both High and Ultra produce 34.0 FPS. Notably, High and Ultra produce identical averages at 4K, indicating that the GPU or CPU is saturated at that point, regardless of the additional graphical load from Ultra settings.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset always delivers the highest average FPS, and the delta between Low and Medium is consistent: 26.0 FPS at 1080p, 16.4 FPS at 1440p, and 15.8 FPS at 4K. The delta between Medium and High grows with resolution: 18.3 FPS at 1080p, 15.2 FPS at 1440p, and 9.9 FPS at 4K. The High-to-Ultra delta shrinks as resolution rises, from 4.0 FPS at 1080p to 2.5 FPS at 1440p, and reaching 0.0 FPS at 4K.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

Examining the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 104.2 at 1080p to 81.2 at 1440p, a reduction of 23.0 FPS (22.1%). Moving from 1440p to 4K, the FPS falls to 59.7, a further reduction of 21.5 FPS (26.5%). The overall drop from 1080p to 4K is 44.5 FPS, representing a 42.7% decrease. This pattern indicates that the GPU is becoming more stressed as pixel count rises, but the CPU still has headroom because the simulation workload at Low settings is lighter.

For the Medium preset, the 1080p average of 78.2 FPS drops to 64.8 at 1440p (a 13.4 FPS decrease, or 17.1%), then to 43.9 at 4K (a 20.9 FPS decrease, or 32.3%). The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 34.3 FPS (43.9%). The larger percentage drop between 1440p and 4K suggests that the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus struggle with 4K textures.

At High settings, the 1080p average is 59.9 FPS, dropping to 49.6 at 1440p (a 10.3 FPS decrease, or 17.2%), then to 34.0 at 4K (a 15.6 FPS decrease, or 31.5%). The cumulative drop is 25.9 FPS (43.2%). For Ultra, the 1080p average of 55.9 FPS falls to 47.1 at 1440p (an 8.8 FPS decrease, or 15.7%), then to 34.0 at 4K (a 13.1 FPS decrease, or 27.8%). The total drop is 21.9 FPS (39.2%).

The consistency of the percentage drops across settings — roughly 40-44% from 1080p to 4K — indicates that the limiting component shifts gradually. At 1080p, the CPU's single-thread performance (boost clock 4.30 GHz, Cinebench R23 single-core 1681) is sufficient to drive high FPS, and the GPU handles the load. As resolution climbs, the GPU's compute resources and memory bandwidth become the binding constraint, but the CPU's 4-core design also limits the frame rate in simulation-heavy scenes. The fact that High and Ultra both hit exactly 34.0 FPS at 4K is a strong signal that the combination of CPU and GPU has reached a hard ceiling at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and the user's preference for smoothness versus visual fidelity. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 59.9 FPS, which is just shy of a 60 FPS target. The Ultra preset drops to 55.9 FPS, a 4.0 FPS penalty for marginal visual gains. The Medium preset at 78.2 FPS offers substantial headroom above 60 FPS, making it the most balanced choice for a consistent experience. The Low preset's 104.2 FPS is excessive for most displays and sacrifices too much visual quality.

At 1440p, the Medium preset produces 64.8 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with a small margin. The High preset at 49.6 FPS falls below 60, and Ultra at 47.1 FPS is only marginally slower. Given that the delta between High and Ultra is just 2.5 FPS, users might prefer Ultra if they prioritize visuals, but the Medium preset is the only one that reliably maintains a smooth frame rate. The Low preset at 81.2 FPS is an option for users with 144 Hz displays.

At 4K, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 59.7 FPS is the only measured configuration that approaches 60 FPS, while Medium (43.9 FPS) and both High and Ultra (34.0 FPS) fall well below. For 4K gaming, the Low preset is the only viable choice for playable frame rates. The fact that High and Ultra produce identical averages at 4K means there is no benefit to selecting Ultra over High — the extra graphical load yields zero additional FPS, suggesting the system is fully saturated.

Overall, the data recommends Medium settings at 1080p and 1440p for the best balance of visual quality and frame rate, while 4K users should stick to Low settings to stay near 60 FPS. The measured rows show no scenario where Ultra provides a meaningful advantage over High, particularly at higher resolutions, making High the better choice when the user wants maximum fidelity without sacrificing performance.