Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the pairing of the Intel Core i5-12400 with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT produces a clear, predictable pattern of results. The data shows a system that is firmly capable of smooth gameplay at 1080p, but which struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K, particularly on higher presets. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, interprets what those numbers mean for the limiting component, and offers practical advice for configuring the game.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and consistent drop as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound workload. At 1080p with Low settings, the system delivers an average of 101 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 81 FPS, a 20 FPS reduction, and then 4K Low further reduces it to 60 FPS. This scaling indicates that even at the lowest settings, the graphics card is the primary bottleneck; the CPU has ample headroom to feed frames, but the RX 6600 XT cannot keep pace as pixel count rises.

The gap becomes more pronounced at higher settings. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 59 at 1080p to 47 at 1440p, and then to 35 at 4K. The difference between 1080p and 4K at High is a 24 FPS loss, which is a 41% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This steep drop-off suggests that the game's visual complexity at High settings, combined with the 4K resolution, places an overwhelming load on the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth.

Ultra settings show the most severe scaling. The average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 56, which drops to 45 at 1440p, and then to 33 at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest measured in the entire dataset, indicating that this configuration is not viable for a playable experience at that resolution and preset. The pattern across all four presets is consistent: the delta between 1080p and 1440p is roughly 20-25%, and the delta between 1440p and 4K is another 25-30%, confirming that the RX 6600 XT's performance ceiling is being hit well before the CPU becomes a factor.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 23 chip, and its specifications directly explain the measured frame rates. The GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This memory configuration is a critical constraint at higher resolutions; 4K textures and geometry can easily pressure the 8 GB frame buffer, which likely contributes to the steep performance drop from 1440p to 4K. The 128-bit bus width is narrow by modern standards, and the data shows that the card is not designed for 4K gaming at high presets.

Clock speeds are relatively high, with a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. These clocks allow the card to reach a peak FP32 performance of 10.60 TFLOPS, which is respectable for a 160 W card. However, the benchmark results show that this compute power is insufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy draw calls and shading workloads at 4K. The card's percentile rank of 70 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 24442, places it in the mid-range tier, and the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and the Intel Arc A350M, both of which are lower-end parts.

The measured FPS at 1080p Medium (78 FPS) and High (59 FPS) suggests that the card performs best when the resolution is kept moderate. The 8 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for 1080p and even 1440p at Medium settings, but the Ultra preset at 4K (33 FPS) indicates that the card is fully saturated. The data does not show any frame time or 1% low data, but the average FPS figures alone are enough to conclude that the GPU is the limiting factor in all measured scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400 a bottleneck for the RX 6600 XT in this game?

A: No. The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and its benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multicore of 15989) are strong. The measured FPS scaling with resolution shows the GPU is the limiting component; if the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would be more consistent across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 60 FPS. At Medium settings, the average drops to 47 FPS, and at High and Ultra, it falls to 35 FPS and 33 FPS, respectively. For a smooth 4K experience, the RX 6600 XT is not sufficient beyond Low settings.

Q: What is the best resolution for this pairing?

A: The data shows 1080p is the sweet spot. At 1080p, the system averages 101 FPS on Low, 78 FPS on Medium, 59 FPS on High, and 56 FPS on Ultra. All presets are playable, with Medium and High offering the best balance of visual quality and performance.

Q: How does the RX 6600 XT compare to its nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER, scores 24170, which is a 1.1% difference. The GTX 1630 scores 24277, a 0.7% difference, and the Intel Arc A350M scores 24647, a -0.8% difference. These are very close scores, indicating similar overall performance.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM limit performance at 1440p?

A: The data shows that at 1440p, the system averages 81 FPS on Low, 63 FPS on Medium, 47 FPS on High, and 45 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is notable, but the frame rates remain playable on Medium and Low. The 8 GB VRAM likely contributes to the Ultra preset's lower performance, but the card is still usable at 1440p with reduced settings.

Q: What is the CPU's single-threaded performance relative to its rivals?

A: The i5-12400 scores 910 in 3DMark single-thread and 2257 in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its nearest CPU rival, the AMD EPYC 7643, has an average score of 18697, which is 0.1% higher than the i5-12400's 18683 average. The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, 0.9% lower. These deltas are minor, showing the i5-12400 is competitive in single-threaded tasks.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset provides a clear picture of performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its highest frame rates. With Low settings, the average FPS is 101, which is the best result in the entire set. Medium settings yield an average of 78 FPS, with a minimum of 66 FPS and a maximum of 90 FPS. High settings produce an average of 59 FPS, and Ultra settings average 56 FPS. These numbers show that 1080p is fully playable on all presets, with even the most demanding Ultra preset staying above 55 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 81 FPS, which is still smooth for most users. Medium settings average 63 FPS, with a minimum of 54 FPS and a maximum of 73 FPS. High settings average 47 FPS, and Ultra settings average 45 FPS. The 1440p results indicate that Medium is the highest preset that maintains a consistent 60 FPS average, while High and Ultra require a tolerance for frame rates in the mid-40s.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's limitations become stark. Low settings average 60 FPS, which is exactly at the threshold for smooth play. Medium settings average 47 FPS, with a minimum of 40 FPS and a maximum of 54 FPS. High settings average 35 FPS, and Ultra settings average 33 FPS. The 4K data shows that only Low settings provide a playable experience, and even then, the average is borderline. The lack of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra at 4K means we cannot assess frame time consistency, but the averages are clear.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, the Medium preset is the best recommendation for most users. It delivers an average of 78 FPS, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold, and the minimum of 66 FPS ensures that dips are rare. The High preset at 59 FPS is also acceptable, but the extra visual fidelity comes at a cost of nearly 20 FPS. For users who prioritize maximum visual quality, Ultra at 56 FPS is playable, but the average is close to the 60 FPS target, so frame drops may be noticeable.

At 1440p, the Medium preset is the clear choice. It averages 63 FPS, with a minimum of 54 FPS, which is the only preset that stays above 60 FPS on average. Low settings at 81 FPS are overly conservative, sacrificing visual quality for a frame rate that exceeds what most monitors can display. High and Ultra at 47 FPS and 45 FPS, respectively, are not recommended for a smooth experience, as they fall below the 60 FPS threshold and may feel stuttery during complex scenes.

At 4K, the only viable option is Low settings, which average 60 FPS. Medium settings at 47 FPS are borderline, but the minimum of 40 FPS suggests significant drops during busy moments. High and Ultra at 35 FPS and 33 FPS are not suitable for a flight simulator, where precise control is essential. The data suggests that users with a 4K display should either lower the resolution to 1440p or accept Low settings at 4K.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 provides a solid foundation for this GPU, but its role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is secondary to the graphics card. The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores are strong, including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15989 and a single-core score of 2257. These results place the CPU in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18683.

The CPU's nearest rivals show that it is well-balanced for gaming. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, a 0.1% difference, and the Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730, a 0.3% difference. The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, which is 0.9% lower. These tight deltas indicate that the i5-12400 is neither a standout nor a weak link in terms of raw processing power.

In this game, the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to handle the simulation and physics workloads, but the data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is consistent across all presets, which would not happen if the CPU were limiting performance. The i5-12400's high boost clock of 4.40 GHz helps maintain frame pacing, but the measured averages are dictated by the RX 6600 XT's capabilities. For users considering an upgrade, the data suggests that improving the GPU would yield larger frame rate gains than upgrading the CPU, given that the current CPU is not the limiting factor in any tested scenario.