Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents one of the most demanding workloads in the benchmark database, and the combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti produces a clear, data-driven picture of where the bottlenecks lie. The measured frames per second across three resolutions and four quality presets reveal a system that is consistently capable of playable performance at lower settings, but which quickly runs out of headroom when visual fidelity is maximized. This analysis walks through the resolution scaling, the roles of the CPU and GPU, and the optimal settings for this specific pairing, using only the measured data available.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is stark and defines the system's limits. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 76.6 FPS at 1920x1080 to 62.1 FPS at 2560x1440, and then plummets to 44.8 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 41.5% reduction in performance from 1080p to 4K at the lowest preset. The pattern holds across all settings: at Medium, the drop is from 61.9 FPS at 1080p to 35.6 FPS at 4K, a 42.5% decrease. At High, the numbers go from 46.1 FPS down to 28.1 FPS, and at Ultra, from 41.5 FPS to 27.3 FPS.

This scaling behavior indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting component at higher resolutions. The GTX 1660 Ti, with its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192-bit bus, is being tasked with rendering an increasing number of pixels. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is significant, but the jump to 4K is disproportionately punishing. For instance, at High settings, the move from 1440p (35 FPS) to 4K (28.1 FPS) is a 19.7% loss, while the move from 1080p (46.1 FPS) to 1440p is a 24.1% loss. The data suggests that 4K is only viable at Low settings, where 44.8 FPS is achieved, but even that is borderline for a smooth experience.

The scaling also reveals that the CPU is not the primary constraint at higher resolutions. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 76.6 FPS, which is respectable. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to remain flat as resolution increases, but the consistent and sharp decline with resolution confirms the GPU is doing the heavy lifting. The i3-12100F has enough headroom to push frames at lower resolutions, but the GTX 1660 Ti simply cannot sustain high frame rates as pixel count rises.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its benchmark results show a single-thread score of 893 in 3dmark and a passmark single-thread score of 3444, which are strong figures for a quad-core part. In multi-threaded tests, it scores 4051 in 3dmark_16_threads and 11912 in cinebench_r23_multicore, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. This suggests the processor is well-suited for a simulation title that relies heavily on single-core performance for flight model calculations and world generation.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p Low, the system hits 76.6 FPS, which is a high enough frame rate that the CPU is likely still delivering frames faster than the GPU can render them. The CPU's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, which has a deltaPct of -0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-7700K, which is 1.8% behind. This places the i3-12100F in good company, with its average benchmark score of 13516 being nearly identical to the Threadripper's 13534. For a flight simulator, the 8 threads are sufficient, and the high boost clock of 4.30 GHz ensures that the single-threaded workload is handled efficiently.

However, the CPU's role becomes more pronounced when the GPU is not saturated. At 1080p Low, the system is likely GPU-bound, but at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 27.3 FPS, which is far below what the CPU is capable of producing. The benchmark results show that the i3-12100F is not a weak link; it is the GPU that limits the experience at higher settings. The CPU's 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB per-core L2 cache provide adequate bandwidth for the game's streaming demands, but the data does not show any CPU-induced stuttering or frame pacing issues.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system consistently exceeds 40 FPS across all settings. At 2560x1440, only Low settings (62.1 FPS) and Medium (46.5 FPS) are playable, while 3840x2160 is only viable at Low (44.8 FPS).

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 13925, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13871) and 0.8% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13821). It is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K10 (14029).

Q: Is the Core i3-12100F a bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The measured FPS at 1080p Low is 76.6, which is high enough to suggest the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's single-thread score of 893 in 3dmark and 3444 in passmark indicate strong performance, and it sits in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 62.1 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 33.9 FPS. This is a 45.4% reduction in performance, showing that the GPU is heavily taxed by the Ultra preset.

Q: Does the game use the CPU's multi-threading capabilities effectively?

A: The CPU has 8 threads and scores 4026 in 3dmark_8_threads, which is nearly identical to its max-thread score of 4023. This suggests that the game scales well with the available threads, but the 4-core design is sufficient for the workload.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K High compared to 1080p Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 High, the average FPS is 28.1, while at 1920x1080 Ultra, it is 41.5. This represents a 32.3% performance loss from 1080p Ultra to 4K High, indicating that 4K is not recommended for this GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's capabilities. At 1920x1080, the lowest preset delivers 76.6 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this configuration. Medium settings at 1080p produce 61.9 FPS, High drops to 46.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 41.5 FPS. This shows that even at the native resolution for most monitors, the Ultra preset is only marginally above the 30 FPS threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades predictably. Low settings yield 62.1 FPS, which is still smooth, but Medium drops to 46.5 FPS. High settings produce 35 FPS, and Ultra falls to 33.9 FPS. The data indicates that 1440p is only viable for this system at Low or Medium presets, as the High and Ultra settings approach the lower bounds of playability.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles. Low settings are the only playable option, delivering 44.8 FPS. Medium drops to 35.6 FPS, High to 28.1 FPS, and Ultra to 27.3 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest measured frame rate, and even the High preset is below 30 FPS. This resolution is clearly not suited for the GTX 1660 Ti in this game, as the GPU's 6 GB of VRAM and 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth are insufficient for the high-resolution textures and geometry.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the difference between Low and Ultra settings at any given resolution is substantial. At 1080p, the gap is 35.1 FPS (76.6 vs 41.5), at 1440p it is 28.2 FPS (62.1 vs 33.9), and at 4K it is 17.5 FPS (44.8 vs 27.3). This suggests that the GPU's compute resources are the primary driver of performance, and that reducing settings has a more significant impact at lower resolutions where the CPU is less of a factor.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the clear bottleneck in this configuration. Its base clock of 1500 MHz and boost clock of 1770 MHz provide a solid foundation, and its 1536 shading units are capable of handling the game's shader workloads. However, the GPU's 6 GB of GDDR6 memory is a limiting factor at higher settings, as Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for its large texture sets. The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s is adequate for 1080p but becomes strained at 1440p and 4K.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 13925. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570X, which is 0.4% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680, which is 0.8% behind. The GTX 1660 Ti is 0.7% ahead of the Tesla K10, but all of these cards are in a similar performance tier. This explains why the measured FPS at 1080p High (46.1) is respectable, but the card cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra (27.3 FPS).

The data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at all resolutions above 1080p Low. The frame rates drop sharply as resolution increases, and the settings have a dramatic effect on performance. For instance, at 1440p, the difference between Low (62.1 FPS) and Ultra (33.9 FPS) is 28.2 FPS, which is a 45.4% reduction. This indicates that the GPU's pixel throughput is the primary constraint, as the CPU is capable of feeding it frames at a faster rate.

The GPU's DirectX 12 score of 51 in passmark suggests that it can handle the API, but the game's use of advanced rendering techniques at Ultra settings pushes the card to its limits. The 6 GB VRAM is also a concern, as the game may be swapping textures to system memory at higher resolutions, causing stutters that are not reflected in the average FPS data. Overall, the GTX 1660 Ti is a capable 1080p card, but it is not suited for high-resolution or high-settings flight simulation.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this system is at 1920x1080 with High settings. This yields 46.1 FPS, which is above the 30 FPS threshold and provides a good balance between visual fidelity and smoothness. The High preset offers a significant improvement over Medium (61.9 FPS) in terms of visual quality, while still maintaining a playable frame rate. At 1080p Ultra, the frame rate drops to 41.5 FPS, which is still playable but offers diminishing returns for the extra GPU load.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visuals, 1920x1080 Low is the best choice, delivering 76.6 FPS. This is the highest measured frame rate in the entire dataset and ensures a very smooth experience, especially for a flight simulator where panning the camera can be demanding. However, the Low preset will noticeably degrade the visual quality of the terrain and aircraft models.

At 2560x1440, the data suggests that Medium settings (46.5 FPS) are the sweet spot. Low settings (62.1 FPS) are smoother, but the visual trade-off is substantial. High (35 FPS) and Ultra (33.9 FPS) are below 40 FPS, which may be acceptable for some users but is not ideal for a flight simulator where precise control inputs are important. At 3840x2160, only Low settings (44.8 FPS) are recommended, as Medium (35.6 FPS) and above are too close to the 30 FPS threshold.

In summary, the best experience is at 1080p High, which offers a good balance of visuals and performance. Users with 1440p monitors should stick to Medium settings, while 4K users should accept Low settings or consider upgrading the GPU. The data does not support using Ultra settings at any resolution, as the performance cost is too high for the modest visual gain.