Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This configuration places the i5-12400 in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19850 across all tested workloads.

In synthetic testing, the i5-12400 demonstrates balanced scaling from 2 threads to 16 threads. Its 3DMark scores progress from 1692 with 2 threads to 4745 with 8 threads, reaching 5873 with 16 threads and 5890 with max threads. This near-linear scaling up to 8 threads indicates strong multi-threading efficiency, though the small gain from 16 to max threads suggests the processor is well-utilized by 12 threads. Cinebench results reinforce this: the R23 multicore score of 15935 versus a single-core score of 2249 shows a multicore-to-single-core ratio of roughly 7.1x, which is typical for a 6-core/12-thread part.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant because the simulator is known for heavy single-threaded physics and weather simulation, but also benefits from additional threads for scenery loading and AI traffic. The i5-12400's single-thread performance, evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 910 and PassMark single-thread score of 3456, provides a strong foundation for the game's primary simulation thread. The PassMark physics score of 1105 further indicates capable computational throughput for the game's flight model calculations.

The processor's nearest rivals in overall benchmark performance include the Intel Core i7-9700 with an average score of 19831 (a 0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-8700 at 19894 (a -0.2% delta). The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX scores 19928 (-0.4% delta), while the Intel Core i5-11600K scores 19771 (0.4% delta). These narrow deltas, all within 0.4% of the i5-12400, indicate that the processor sits in a tightly contested performance tier. In the context of this game, the i5-12400's combination of 6 fast cores and 12 threads provides enough parallelism for the simulator's background tasks without sacrificing the single-thread speed that the primary rendering loop demands.

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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using TSMC's 7 nm process, featuring the Navi 23 chip with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1626 MHz, a game clock of 2044 MHz, and a boost clock of 2491 MHz. Memory comprises 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GPU includes 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, with 28 ray tracing cores.

The RX 6600's compute capabilities include 8.928 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 279.0 GTexel/s, with a pixel rate of 159.4 GPixel/s. In the broader GPU landscape, this card sits in the 69th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25235. Its PassMark G3D score of 15096 and DirectX 12 score of 51 provide context for its DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which is relevant for modern game rendering paths.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's 8 GB VRAM is a critical consideration. The game streams vast terrain and scenery data, and at higher resolutions and detail settings, VRAM usage can become substantial. The 128-bit memory interface with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for the card's compute throughput but may become a limiting factor at 4K with high-detail textures. The boost clock of 2491 MHz helps maintain frame rates in GPU-bound scenarios, while the 64 ROPs handle pixel fill requirements.

The RX 6600's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon 890M at 25246 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP at 25287 (-0.2% delta). The AMD Radeon RX 6700M scores 25180 (0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti scores 25120 (0.5% delta). These deltas are remarkably small, all within 0.5%, suggesting that the RX 6600 delivers performance statistically indistinguishable from its closest competitors in synthetic benchmarks. However, in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which stresses both raw compute and memory bandwidth, the actual FPS results will reveal whether the GPU's architectural characteristics translate into playable performance.

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

The measured FPS data across resolutions reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound scaling. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves 91 FPS, which drops to 75.2 FPS at 1440p (-17.4%) and further to 53.8 FPS at 4K (-40.9% from 1080p). This scaling curve is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario, where the frame rate is primarily determined by the graphics card's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth rather than CPU capabilities.

Under Medium settings, the same trend persists: 72.1 FPS at 1080p, 58.7 FPS at 1440p (-18.6%), and 43.6 FPS at 4K (-39.5% from 1080p). The High settings tier shows 54.9 FPS at 1080p, 42.3 FPS at 1440p (-22.9%), and 30.4 FPS at 4K (-44.6% from 1080p). At Ultra settings, the numbers are 49.1 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p (-18.5%), and 27.8 FPS at 4K (-43.4% from 1080p).

The percentage drops from 1080p to 4K range from 39.5% to 44.6% across all settings, which is relatively consistent. This consistency suggests that the GPU is the limiting component across all settings tiers. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the resolution scaling would be flatter because the CPU workload would remain constant while the GPU work increases. The fact that FPS drops by roughly 40-45% when going from 1080p to 4K indicates that the RX 6600's rendering capabilities, particularly its fill rate and memory bandwidth, are being saturated as pixel count quadruples.

The absolute FPS values also confirm this interpretation. At 4K Ultra, the combo produces 27.8 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for smooth gameplay. At 4K High, the 30.4 FPS is marginally above that threshold. In contrast, at 1080p Ultra, the 49.1 FPS is playable, and at 1080p Low, the 91 FPS shows the CPU can feed the GPU efficiently when the GPU workload is light. The data indicates that users seeking higher frame rates should target 1080p or 1440p, where the RX 6600 can maintain 40 FPS or better even at Ultra settings (40 FPS at 1440p Ultra).

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

In the database of tested processor and graphics card combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 ranks 1475 out of 1795 total combos. This places the combo in approximately the 17.8th percentile of all tested configurations, meaning about 82% of tested combos achieve higher performance in this game. The rank reflects the combined capability of both components within the specific demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

This rank of 1475 out of 1795 indicates that while the individual components are mid-tier performers in their respective categories (the CPU at the 77th percentile and GPU at the 69th percentile), the combination does not synergize as strongly as some higher-ranked pairings. The discrepancy between the component percentiles and the combo rank suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator places unique demands on the system that are not fully captured by synthetic benchmarks. The game's emphasis on single-threaded CPU performance and large VRAM allocations for scenery streaming may penalize this specific configuration more than average workloads.

The rank also implies that there are 320 tested combos that perform worse than this pairing, which provides context for users with older or lower-tier hardware. However, the absolute FPS numbers at 1080p and 1440p are respectable, indicating that the combo is viable for playable frame rates at those resolutions, even if it does not compete with top-tier configurations. The rank should be interpreted as a relative measure: this combo sits in the lower third of the tested field, but the measured FPS data shows it can still deliver 40+ FPS at 1440p Ultra and 30+ FPS at 4K High, which many users would find acceptable.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings tiers.

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS is 91, providing a smooth experience for users prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity. Medium settings reduce this to 72.1 FPS, still comfortably above 60 FPS. High settings yield 54.9 FPS, which is playable but begins to show the GPU's workload. Ultra settings produce 49.1 FPS, maintaining playability at the highest detail level for 1080p.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down as expected. Low settings achieve 75.2 FPS, which remains highly playable. Medium settings deliver 58.7 FPS, just shy of the 60 FPS mark. High settings produce 42.3 FPS, which is adequate for slower-paced flight simulation gameplay. Ultra settings drop to 40 FPS exactly, still providing a playable experience but with noticeable compromises in smoothness during complex scenes.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly stressed. Low settings yield 53.8 FPS, which is playable but below the 60 FPS target. Medium settings produce 43.6 FPS, requiring users to accept moderate detail levels for playability. High settings drop to 30.4 FPS, which is on the edge of the playability threshold. Ultra settings fall to 27.8 FPS, which is below the 30 FPS minimum and would result in stuttery, less enjoyable gameplay.

The data reveals a consistent pattern: this combo is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can maintain playable frame rates across all settings. At 4K, users must choose between Low settings for acceptable frame rates or sacrifice visual quality to achieve smoother performance. The 27.8 FPS at 4K Ultra and 30.4 FPS at 4K High demonstrate that 4K is only viable with reduced settings or for users tolerant of lower frame rates in a simulation genre that is less twitch-reaction-dependent than competitive shooters.