Microsoft Flight Simulator

# CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor from the Alder Lake generation, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU configuration is noteworthy because the game's simulation logic—calculating aerodynamics, weather, and world data—tends to favor single-thread performance, while the terrain streaming and AI traffic can utilize multiple threads.

The benchmark data shows this CPU achieving a 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and a cinebench_r23_singlecore score of 1681, which are respectable numbers for a 12th-generation part. However, the multi-threaded scores reveal the limitation of having only 4 physical cores: the cinebench_r23_multicore score of 11912 is strong for the core count, but the 3dmark_8_threads score of 4026 and 3dmark_max_threads score of 4023 are nearly identical, suggesting the processor saturates its thread capacity quickly. In a game like Flight Simulator, which can push beyond 8 threads during complex scenes with heavy autogen and live weather, the i3-12100F may become a bottleneck despite its high single-core efficiency.

The CPU's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache are adequate for the game's asset streaming needs. The processor also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, though the measured performance does not specify which type was used. With a TDP of 58 W and a launch MSRP of $97, this CPU is positioned as an entry-level desktop part, and its percentileVsAllCpus of 72 indicates it outperforms most processors in general computing tasks. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-7700K, scores 1.8% higher on average, showing that this modern i3 competes well with older higher-tier parts.

For Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and process the game's physics and AI. The measured FPS data at lower resolutions and settings will show whether the CPU can keep up, but the multi-thread ceiling of 4 cores suggests that in Ultra settings with heavy on-screen traffic, the CPU may limit frame pacing.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER is a Turing-architecture GPU with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The GPU's base clock is 1530 MHz with a boost clock of 1785 MHz, and it features 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. This configuration is notable for Flight Simulator because the game's high-resolution textures and detailed terrain require substantial memory bandwidth and fill rate.

The 6 GB VRAM is a critical factor at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset likely pushes memory usage close to or beyond the 6 GB capacity, which can cause texture streaming issues or frame drops. The memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) combined with the 192-bit bus yields the 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p but may struggle at 4K with high settings.

The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its mid-range positioning: a passmark_g3d score of 12699 and a passmark_directx_12 score of 50. The percentileVsAllGpus of 55 indicates it sits near the median of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT, scores 0.7% higher on average, making this card competitive with other entry-level 1080p GPUs of its generation. The GPU also supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which aligns with Flight Simulator's modern API requirements.

In this game, the GPU's role becomes dominant at higher resolutions and settings. The measured data shows that at 1080p Low, the average FPS is 74.8, but at 4K Ultra, it drops to 25.9. This indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K, as the CPU's 4-core design cannot compensate for the GPU's inability to render 4K Ultra at playable frame rates. The 6 GB VRAM is likely saturated at 4K High and Ultra, causing the performance cliff between Low (45.2 FPS) and High (26.2 FPS) at that resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER ranks 1588 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11.5% of all combos, which is expected given the mid-range CPU and entry-level GPU pairing. The rank reflects the system's overall inability to handle the game at high settings and resolutions, particularly at 4K where the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

To contextualize this rank, consider that the CPU alone sits at the 72nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU is at the 55th percentile. The combined rank being so low suggests that Flight Simulator is particularly demanding on both components, and the system's weaknesses are amplified in this title. The rank of 1588 means that 207 combos perform worse, but the vast majority of systems tested deliver better FPS in this game.

The data shows that the system achieves playable frame rates (above 30 FPS) only at lower resolutions and settings: 1080p Medium (59 FPS) and 1440p Medium (46.8 FPS) are solid, but 4K is not viable for anything above Low settings. This ranking also implies that the bottleneck shifts between CPU and GPU depending on resolution—at 1080p Low, the CPU's single-thread performance may be sufficient, but at 4K, the GPU's 6 GB VRAM and 192-bit bus are inadequate.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system delivers 74.8 FPS on Low, 59 FPS on Medium, 48.2 FPS on High, and 44.3 FPS on Ultra. These numbers show a steady decline as settings increase, with a 30.5 FPS drop from Low to Ultra. The 1080p results are all above 44 FPS, making this resolution fully playable even at Ultra, though the gap between High and Ultra (3.9 FPS) is smaller than the gap between Medium and High (10.8 FPS), suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 63.6 on Low, 46.8 on Medium, 37.2 on High, and 33.2 on Ultra. The 1440p results are playable at Medium (46.8 FPS) and below, but High and Ultra fall below 40 FPS, which may be borderline for a simulation game that benefits from smooth frame pacing. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings is consistent: Low loses 11.2 FPS, Medium loses 12.2 FPS, High loses 11 FPS, and Ultra loses 11.1 FPS. This uniformity suggests the GPU is the primary limiter, as the resolution increase proportionally taxes the GPU.

At 3840x2160, the system manages 45.2 FPS on Low, 35.4 FPS on Medium, 26.2 FPS on High, and 25.9 FPS on Ultra. The 4K results are only playable at Low (45.2 FPS), while Medium dips to 35.4 FPS and High/Ultra hover near 26 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is negligible (0.3 FPS), indicating that the GPU has hit a hard performance wall, likely due to VRAM capacity or memory bandwidth saturation.

Resolution Scaling

Analyzing the FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the limiting component. From 1080p Low (74.8 FPS) to 1440p Low (63.6 FPS), the drop is 15%, and to 4K Low (45.2 FPS), the total drop is 39.6%. For Medium settings, the progression is 59 to 46.8 to 35.4 FPS, a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K. High settings drop from 48.2 to 37.2 to 26.2 FPS, a 45.6% drop. Ultra settings drop from 44.3 to 33.2 to 25.9 FPS, a 41.5% drop.

The relative consistency of these percentage drops (ranging from 39.6% to 45.6%) across all settings strongly indicates that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, the scaling would be less pronounced at higher resolutions because the CPU workload stays constant while the GPU workload increases. The fact that Ultra settings at 4K barely differ from High (25.9 vs 26.2 FPS) further confirms the GPU is saturated, likely due to the 6 GB VRAM being exhausted and the 336.0 GB/s bandwidth being insufficient for 4K texture streaming.

However, the CPU's limitations become apparent at 1080p Low, where the FPS is 74.8—this is below the 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 would suggest for a simple scene, indicating that even at low settings, the CPU's 4 cores are working hard to process the simulation. The 1080p Ultra score of 44.3 FPS versus 4K Low of 45.2 FPS is an interesting anomaly: the system achieves slightly higher FPS at 4K Low than at 1080p Ultra, which suggests that the Ultra preset at 1080p imposes a CPU-side overhead (more draw calls, more AI) that the GPU can handle, but the CPU cannot fully feed. This points to a balanced bottleneck at lower resolutions, where both components are stressed.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate. At 1920x1080, the High preset (48.2 FPS) offers the best balance of visual quality and smoothness, as it stays above 45 FPS while providing better visuals than Medium (59 FPS). The Ultra preset at 1080p (44.3 FPS) is playable but offers only a marginal improvement over High (3.9 FPS), making it less efficient in terms of performance per visual gain.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset (46.8 FPS) is the recommended choice, as it delivers a playable frame rate above 45 FPS while maintaining reasonable visual fidelity. The High preset (37.2 FPS) falls below the 40 FPS threshold that many simulation players prefer for smooth camera panning and detail rendering. The Low preset (63.6 FPS) is viable for competitive or minimum-spec users, but the visual downgrade is significant.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset (45.2 FPS) is playable, while Medium (35.4 FPS) and High (26.2 FPS) are not recommended due to sub-30 FPS performance. The Ultra preset (25.9 FPS) is effectively unplayable. For 4K users, the Low preset provides a stable experience, but the system is clearly not designed for 4K gaming in this title. The data indicates that the best overall experience is 1080p High (48.2 FPS) or 1440p Medium (46.8 FPS), depending on display resolution preference. Given the GPU's 6 GB VRAM, users should avoid Ultra settings at any resolution above 1080p to prevent texture pop-in or memory-related stutters.