Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the measured performance of the Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the Intel Arc B580 provides a clear picture of how this combination handles the load. The data shows a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, yet reveals a surprisingly capable CPU when the resolution is lowered. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across three resolutions and four settings presets, placing the results in the context of the broader hardware landscape.

Resolution Scaling

The transition from 1080p to 4K is where the bottleneck in this system becomes unmistakable. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 95.6 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings drops the frame rate to 76.8 FPS, a reduction of roughly 20%. The step to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields 56.8 FPS, which is a further 26% decline from the 1440p figure. This scaling pattern is typical for a GPU-bound scenario; as the pixel count increases, the Arc B580's workload expands, and the performance drops accordingly.

However, the scaling behavior changes when the settings are cranked up. At the Ultra preset, the average FPS is 56.9 at 1080p, 42.9 at 1440p, and 28.4 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is about 25%, but the drop from 1440p to 4K is a steeper 34%. This indicates that at Ultra settings, the game's visual complexity, including advanced shading and draw distances, places an even heavier load on the GPU's compute and memory subsystems, making the 4K resolution nearly untenable for a smooth experience.

The data suggests that the Core i3-12100F is not the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K, the frame rates across all presets are relatively low, which points to the Arc B580 being the component that is saturated. The CPU's 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at these lower frame rates. The picture changes at 1080p, where the CPU's role becomes more significant. While we cannot definitively separate CPU and GPU utilization from this data alone, the fact that the FPS scales so predictably with resolution strongly implies that the GPU is the bottleneck, especially when comparing the 56.9 FPS at 1080p Ultra to the 95.6 FPS at 1080p Low; the CPU has enough headroom to allow the GPU to flex its muscles at lower settings.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific pairing holds a rank of 1382 out of 1795 combos. This places it in the lower-middle tier of all tested systems, indicating that while it is not a top-tier performer for this specific simulator, it is also far from the bottom of the pile. The rank reflects the overall average performance across all settings and resolutions, which is dragged down by the sub-30 FPS results at 4K Ultra.

To contextualize the CPU's contribution, the Intel Core i3-12100F sits at the 72nd percentile when compared to all CPUs in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 13516 places it in a tight cluster with several other processors. The nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, scores 13534, a delta of just -0.1%. This is a statistical tie. The Intel Core i7-1250U is 0.4% ahead, and the Intel Core i3-10105 is 0.6% ahead. The closest competitor with a more significant gap is the Intel Core i7-7700K, which is 1.8% faster. These numbers demonstrate that the i3-12100F's processing power is competitive with much more expensive and higher-core-count parts in general compute tasks, but its ranking in this game is more heavily influenced by the GPU.

The GPU, the Intel Arc B580, holds the 66th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 23021 is within a hair of its nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon 760M is a mere 0.1% behind, the NVIDIA P106-100 is 0.3% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile is 1.3% behind. The most interesting comparison is with the desktop NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, which is only 0.7% faster on average. This suggests that the Arc B580 is a very competitive mid-range graphics card in general, but its performance in Flight Simulator, as reflected by the combo's rank, is what ultimately matters here.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B580 is the workhorse of this pairing, and its specifications directly explain the observed frame rates. It comes equipped with 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s. This is a substantial amount of memory bandwidth, which is critical for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams vast amounts of terrain and texture data. The 12 GB capacity is also a significant asset, ensuring that the card is unlikely to run out of memory at 4K, even with high-resolution texture packs enabled.

Clock speeds are another key factor. The GPU operates at a base and boost clock of 2670 MHz, which is a high frequency for a modern graphics card. This high clock speed contributes to its raw compute throughput of 13.67 TFLOPS. The card's rendering capabilities are further defined by its 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output pipelines. These figures translate to a pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s. These are the metrics that directly influence how quickly the GPU can fill the screen with rendered geometry and apply textures, and they are the reason why the card performs as it does in the resolution scaling tests.

The relationship between these specs and the game's results is clear. At 4K, the demand on the pixel rate and texture rate is immense. The card's performance drops to 32.2 FPS at High settings and 28.4 FPS at Ultra, showing that it is hitting its limits. The 20 dedicated ray tracing cores are present but are not a significant factor in the measured data, as Flight Simulator's ray tracing effects are not heavily utilized in the tested presets. The card's performance is instead defined by its raw rasterization power and memory subsystem, which are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p gaming but struggle to maintain playable frame rates at 4K with high-quality presets.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance between visual fidelity and playability is found at the High preset. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 58.9 FPS, which is a smooth experience for a flight simulator. The Ultra preset, at 56.9 FPS, offers only a marginal 2 FPS improvement, which is not worth the potential for more frequent stutters in complex scenes. The High preset appears to be the sweet spot where the game looks excellent without pushing the hardware to its absolute breaking point.

At 2560x1440, the High preset yields 47.6 FPS. This is still playable, but it is approaching the lower bound of what is considered smooth for this genre. The Medium preset at 62.6 FPS is a better choice for a more consistent experience at this resolution. The jump from Medium to High at 1440p costs 15 FPS, a significant drop, and the further jump to Ultra (42.9 FPS) is too steep. Therefore, for 1440p, the Medium preset offers the best frame rate while retaining a reasonable level of graphical detail.

For 3840x2160, the situation is more challenging. The High preset only manages 32.2 FPS, and Ultra drops to 28.4 FPS. Both are below the threshold for a fluid experience. The Medium preset at 46.1 FPS is the most playable option at 4K, but even this is not ideal. The Low preset at 56.8 FPS is the only one that achieves a solid frame rate, but it requires a significant sacrifice in visual quality. The recommendation for 4K is to use the Medium preset for a playable, if not visually spectacular, experience. Ultimately, the High preset at 1080p provides the best overall experience, balancing the game's demanding visuals with a smooth and stable frame rate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is the complete measured FPS data for this combination. The data is presented as average FPS for each resolution and settings preset, with no minimum or maximum frame rates recorded.

1920x1080

• Low: 95.6 FPS
• Medium: 77.9 FPS
• High: 58.9 FPS
• Ultra: 56.9 FPS

At 1080p, the system shows its strength. The 95.6 FPS at Low settings indicates that the CPU is capable of driving the GPU to high frame rates. The drop from Low to Medium is 17.7 FPS, and from Medium to High is 19 FPS, showing the cost of increasing visual complexity. The small 2 FPS difference between High and Ultra suggests that the Ultra preset introduces effects that are not fully leveraging the hardware, or that the CPU is beginning to become a limiting factor at these higher frame rates.

2560x1440

• Low: 76.8 FPS
• Medium: 62.6 FPS
• High: 47.6 FPS
• Ultra: 42.9 FPS

At 1440p, the scaling is more linear. The system maintains a playable frame rate across all presets, though Ultra dips below the 45 FPS mark. The gap between High and Ultra is 4.7 FPS, which is more pronounced than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is now the primary bottleneck. The Medium preset offers a comfortable 62.6 FPS, making it the most versatile choice for this resolution.

3840x2160

• Low: 56.8 FPS
• Medium: 46.1 FPS
• High: 32.2 FPS
• Ultra: 28.4 FPS

At 4K, the limitations of the Arc B580 are fully exposed. Even the Low preset struggles to maintain 60 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are effectively unplayable for a smooth experience, with frame rates in the 28-32 FPS range. The performance cliff between Medium (46.1 FPS) and High (32.2 FPS) is the largest single drop in the entire dataset, highlighting the immense cost of the High preset's features at this resolution. This data clearly shows that 4K is only viable with significant compromises in settings.