Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers a highly capable Microsoft Flight Simulator experience, but the data shows that the optimal settings depend heavily on your target resolution and refresh rate. The measured frame rates reveal a clear hierarchy across the four available presets, with the Low and Medium presets offering the most flexibility for high-refresh-rate displays, while High and Ultra are reserved for those prioritizing visual fidelity at lower frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

The benchmark results indicate that the Medium preset at 1080p is the sweet spot for this combination. At 1920x1080, Medium produces an average of 81.6 FPS, which is 27.3% higher than the High preset’s 64.1 FPS and only 26.1 FPS behind the Low preset’s 107.7 FPS. This provides a smooth, fluid experience that is well above the 60 FPS threshold while still maintaining significantly better visual quality than Low. The data shows that Medium at 1080p is 32.0% faster than Ultra at 1080p (57.6 FPS), making it the most balanced choice for general play.

For users with 1440p monitors, the Low preset is the only option that consistently stays above 60 FPS, delivering an average of 85.8 FPS. The Medium preset at 2560x1440 drops to 66.2 FPS, which is still playable but shows a 22.8% performance penalty compared to 1080p Medium. If you prioritize smoothness over detail at 1440p, Low is the recommended preset, but Medium remains viable for those who can tolerate occasional dips near 60 FPS.

At 4K (3840x2160), the situation becomes more constrained. The Low preset is the clear recommendation, achieving 63.2 FPS average, which is the only 4K setting that breaks the 60 FPS barrier. The Medium preset at 4K falls to 48.2 FPS, and High drops to 37.3 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 34 FPS. For 4K displays, the data suggests that Low is the only preset that offers a consistently smooth experience, with a 31.1% advantage over Medium at the same resolution.

FAQ

Q: Is the Ultra preset usable at any resolution with this hardware?

A: The data shows that Ultra at 1080p produces 57.6 FPS, at 1440p it produces 49.4 FPS, and at 4K it produces 34 FPS. While all are technically playable, only the 1080p result approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience, indicating that Ultra is best reserved for 1080p displays.

Q: How much performance is gained by dropping from High to Low at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 85.8 FPS compared to High’s 48.2 FPS. This represents a 78.0% increase in average frame rate, making Low substantially faster for users who need higher refresh rates.

Q: What is the difference between the Medium and High presets at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 averages 81.6 FPS, while High averages 64.1 FPS. The Medium preset is 27.3% faster, suggesting that the visual upgrade from Medium to High carries a notable performance cost that may not be justified for competitive play.

Q: Does the GPU become a bottleneck at 4K with this processor?

A: The average FPS at 4K Ultra is 34 FPS, which is 41.0% lower than 1440p Ultra’s 49.4 FPS. The steep drop across all settings at 4K indicates that the RX 6650 XT is the limiting component at this resolution, as the CPU’s performance headroom cannot compensate for the increased pixel workload.

Q: Which resolution provides the best balance for a 144Hz monitor?

A: Only the 1080p Low preset (107.7 FPS) and 1440p Low preset (85.8 FPS) come close to high-refresh-rate territory. However, 1080p Medium at 81.6 FPS is the highest-quality preset that still exceeds 80 FPS, making it the best option for high-refresh displays that also require decent visuals.

Q: How does the 1080p Ultra result compare to the 4K Medium result?

A: The 1080p Ultra preset averages 57.6 FPS, while 4K Medium averages 48.2 FPS. The 1080p Ultra result is 19.5% faster, and it also provides higher visual fidelity than 4K Medium due to the preset tier difference, making 1080p Ultra the more sensible choice for visual quality per frame rate.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s. This memory configuration is sufficient for the measured presets, as the data shows consistent scaling from Low to Ultra without any anomalous drops that would indicate memory capacity issues. The GPU’s boost clock of 2635 MHz and game clock of 2410 MHz provide the computational throughput necessary to drive the frame rates seen in the results.

The benchmark data reveals that the GPU’s role becomes increasingly dominant as resolution rises. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 50.1 FPS, but at 4K this difference narrows to 29.2 FPS. This compression of the performance gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is becoming saturated, particularly at 4K where even the Low preset (63.2 FPS) is only 36.8% faster than the Ultra preset (34 FPS). The GPU’s 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs are clearly the limiting factor at 4K, as the CPU’s six cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions.

The GPU’s position in the broader market, ranked at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, underscores its mid-range status. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, has a nearly identical average benchmark score (29011 vs 29024), yet the desktop RX 6650 XT’s performance in this simulator is heavily influenced by the flight sim’s demanding rendering workload, which shows a steep drop-off at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1115th out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all tested systems. This mid-pack ranking is consistent with the component choices, as neither the CPU nor the GPU is a top-tier part, but both are competent mid-range performers.

The CPU’s own performance percentile (77th among all CPUs) is higher than the combo’s overall ranking, suggesting that the GPU is holding back the system in this particular game. The i5-12400’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-9700 (0.1% faster) and the Intel Core i5-11600K (0.4% faster), show that the CPU is competitive with older high-end parts, but the GPU’s 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs drags the combined result down slightly.

The rank of 1115 out of 1795 means that roughly 62% of tested combos outperform this setup in Microsoft Flight Simulator, while 38% are slower. This places the system in the upper-middle tier of the database, indicating that it can handle the game well at most settings, but it will not dominate at 4K Ultra, where the 34 FPS result is clearly below the average for top-tier combos.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 107.7 at 1080p to 85.8 at 1440p (a 20.3% decrease), and then further to 63.2 at 4K (a 26.3% decrease from 1440p). This pattern indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor, as the frame rate scales inversely with pixel count.

At the Medium preset, the drop is even more pronounced: 81.6 FPS at 1080p falls to 66.2 at 1440p (an 18.9% decrease) and then to 48.2 at 4K (a 27.2% decrease from 1440p). The High preset follows a similar trajectory, with 64.1 at 1080p dropping to 48.2 at 1440p (a 24.8% decrease) and then to 37.3 at 4K (a 22.6% decrease from 1440p). The Ultra preset shows the most resistance to resolution scaling, with 57.6 at 1080p, 49.4 at 1440p (a 14.2% decrease), and 34 at 4K (a 31.2% decrease from 1440p).

The fact that the percentage drop from 1440p to 4K is generally larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p confirms that the GPU is reaching its limits at 4K. The CPU’s performance, as indicated by its benchmark scores (e.g., 15935 in Cinebench R23 multi-core), is sufficient to keep up with the GPU’s output at 1080p and 1440p, but the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 280.3 GB/s becomes a bottleneck at 4K, where the pixel workload increases by 2.25x compared to 1440p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured frame rates provides a detailed picture of this system’s capabilities. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers the highest average at 107.7 FPS, followed by Medium at 81.6 FPS, High at 64.1 FPS, and Ultra at 57.6 FPS. The spread of 50.1 FPS from Low to Ultra shows that the GPU has significant headroom at this resolution, allowing users to trade performance for visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 85.8 FPS, Medium drops to 66.2 FPS, High falls to 48.2 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 49.4 FPS. Interestingly, the High preset at 1440p (48.2 FPS) is nearly identical to the Ultra preset at 1440p (49.4 FPS), suggesting that the visual difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is minimal in terms of performance cost. The Medium preset at 1440p provides the best balance of quality and speed, offering 66.2 FPS which is 37.3% faster than High.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only one that maintains a playable average, hitting 63.2 FPS. The Medium preset falls to 48.2 FPS, High to 37.3 FPS, and Ultra to 34 FPS. The 29.2 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is the smallest across all resolutions, indicating that the GPU is heavily constrained at this resolution. The data shows that 4K Ultra (34 FPS) is 41.0% slower than 1440p Ultra (49.4 FPS), and 4K High (37.3 FPS) is 41.8% slower than 1440p High (48.2 FPS), demonstrating the severe impact of 4K rendering on this mid-range GPU.

Overall, the measured FPS data confirms that the Intel Core i5-12400 + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT combination is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can achieve high frame rates at medium settings, while 4K should be reserved for Low preset gameplay or users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate smoothness.