Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 combination sits at rank 2527 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower third of all tested systems, which is a meaningful indicator of where this pairing stands. The combo rank reflects the aggregate performance across all resolutions and settings tested, and the data shows this system is positioned for playable but not exceptional flight simulator performance.

The CPU itself holds a 72nd percentile ranking against all tested processors, which suggests the i5-12400 is a solid mid-pack performer. Its average benchmark score of 18683 places it within a razor-thin margin of several rivals — the AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, just 0.1% ahead, while the Intel Core i7-1355U sits 0.3% ahead at 18730. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 leads by 0.7% with 18811, and the Intel Core i3-14100F trails by 0.9% at 18519. These margins are negligible in real-world terms, meaning the i5-12400 is effectively performance-equivalent to a diverse set of competing chips that span server, mobile, and desktop segments.

On the GPU side, the RX 7600 holds a 57th percentile ranking against all tested graphics cards. Its average benchmark score of 15171 lands within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM (15199), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (15082), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (15063), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon 680M (15270). The RX 7600's RDNA 3 architecture and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory position it as a mainstream card, and the benchmark data confirms it sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The combination's rank of 2527 out of 3714 means roughly two-thirds of tested combos outperform it in this specific title. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for being demanding, and the data reflects that this pairing delivers mid-range results. The i5-12400's six cores and twelve threads provide adequate processing power, while the RX 7600's capabilities determine the graphical ceiling. The measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings will clarify exactly where the bottlenecks appear.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This memory configuration is a critical factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator, a game that streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU's base clock runs at 1720 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz and a boost clock reaching 2655 MHz. The memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed.

The GPU's 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs provide the raw processing hardware, while 32 ray accelerators handle the game's ray-traced effects. The FP32 performance of 21.75 TFLOPS gives an indication of the card's compute capacity. The RX 7600 connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for this performance class.

The data shows the GPU's role shifts dramatically depending on resolution and settings. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 101 FPS average, but this drops to 56 FPS at 1080p Ultra — a 45 FPS swing that is almost entirely attributable to GPU load. At 4K Ultra, the average falls to 33 FPS, clearly indicating the RX 7600's 8 GB frame buffer and compute capacity are being saturated. The VRAM capacity becomes particularly relevant at higher resolutions and detail levels, where the game's massive texture sets can approach or exceed the available memory.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 57 places it slightly above the median of all tested graphics cards. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database show the RX 7600 is competitive with the RTX 3050 OEM, differing by only 0.2%, which places these two cards in the same performance tier. However, the RX 7600's RDNA 3 architecture brings features like DirectX 12 Ultimate support and hardware ray tracing, which matter in a title like Microsoft Flight Simulator that can leverage these capabilities.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how performance scales across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions. Starting at 1080p Low, the system delivers 101 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 81 FPS, and 4K Low falls to 60 FPS. This scaling pattern — a roughly 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and another 26% drop from 1440p to 4K — indicates the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

At Medium settings, the pattern holds: 79 FPS at 1080p, 63 FPS at 1440p, and 47 FPS at 4K. The 1440p Medium result includes measured minimums and maximums of 54 and 73 FPS, respectively, while 4K Medium shows 40 and 54 FPS. These ranges suggest some frame time variance, but the averages remain playable.

High settings show 59 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K. The 4K High result is borderline for smooth gameplay, and the scaling from 1440p to 4K represents a 27% reduction. Ultra settings produce 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The 1080p to 1440p drop is 20%, while the 1440p to 4K drop is 27%.

The resolution scaling data tells a clear story about the limiting component. At 1080p, the system can push well beyond 60 FPS on all but the Ultra preset, suggesting the CPU and GPU are reasonably balanced. As resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows faster than the CPU's, and the RX 7600 becomes the bottleneck. The 4K results across all settings — ranging from 33 to 60 FPS — indicate that this resolution is only viable at Low settings for smooth frame rates.

The scaling behavior also reveals that the i5-12400 is not holding back the system at higher resolutions. The consistent FPS reductions with increasing resolution align with GPU-bound behavior, meaning the CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU even at 4K. This is consistent with the CPU's 72nd percentile ranking and its competitive benchmark scores against nearby rivals.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of performance across the four tested presets. At 1080p, Low settings deliver 101 FPS, Medium 79 FPS, High 59 FPS, and Ultra 56 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 22 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 20 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 3 FPS. This last transition is notable — the visual gains from High to Ultra come at a minimal performance cost.

At 1440p, the pattern shifts: Low produces 81 FPS, Medium 63 FPS, High 48 FPS, and Ultra 45 FPS. The Medium to High transition costs 15 FPS, which is a more significant drop than at 1080p. At 4K, Low yields 60 FPS, Medium 47 FPS, High 35 FPS, and Ultra 33 FPS. The Medium to High transition costs 12 FPS, and the High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the data suggests different sweet spots depending on the display resolution. At 1080p, Medium settings at 79 FPS offer a strong balance — the frame rate is well above the 60 FPS threshold, and the visual improvement over Low is substantial. High settings at 59 FPS are also viable, providing near-60 FPS performance with better detail. Ultra at 56 FPS is nearly identical in performance to High, so users with 1080p displays can enable Ultra without significant penalty.

At 1440p, Medium settings at 63 FPS represent the best measured option that maintains smoothness. High settings drop to 48 FPS, which may be acceptable for a flight simulator where the genre tolerates lower frame rates, but Medium provides a safer margin. At 4K, Low settings at 60 FPS is the only preset that achieves a consistent 60 FPS average. Medium at 47 FPS is the highest setting that remains playable, while High and Ultra fall below 36 FPS.

The measured minimum FPS data for Medium settings across resolutions provides additional context: 67 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 40 FPS at 4K. These minimums indicate the system can maintain reasonable frame pacing at Medium settings, with the 4K result being the most variable. Users prioritizing visual fidelity over raw frame rate can consider High settings at 1080p or 1440p, but the data supports Medium as the recommended preset for most configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset for this combination covers four settings at three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the system produces 60 FPS average on Low, 47 FPS average on Medium (with minimums of 40 and maximums of 54), 35 FPS average on High, and 33 FPS average on Ultra. The 4K results show a clear progression: dropping from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, Medium to High costs 12 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 81 FPS average, Medium produces 63 FPS average (minimums of 54, maximums of 73), High achieves 48 FPS average, and Ultra reaches 45 FPS average. The 1440p scaling shows a 18 FPS drop from Low to Medium, a 15 FPS drop from Medium to High, and a 3 FPS drop from High to Ultra. The High to Ultra transition is consistently minimal across resolutions, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest preset.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its strongest results: 101 FPS average on Low, 79 FPS average on Medium (minimums of 67, maximums of 90), 59 FPS average on High, and 56 FPS average on Ultra. The 1080p results show a 22 FPS drop from Low to Medium, a 20 FPS drop from Medium to High, and a 3 FPS drop from High to Ultra.

The data across all resolutions reveals consistent patterns. The Low preset always provides the highest frame rates, with 101 FPS at 1080p being the single best measured result. The Ultra preset provides the lowest frame rates, with 33 FPS at 4K being the worst measured result. The Medium preset includes the only measured minimum and maximum FPS values, providing insight into frame time consistency.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings: Low settings show a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K (101 to 60 FPS). Medium settings show a 41% drop (79 to 47 FPS). High settings show a 41% drop (59 to 35 FPS). Ultra settings show a 41% drop (56 to 33 FPS). This consistent scaling suggests the GPU bottleneck scales predictably with pixel count.

The 1080p results show the system can exceed 60 FPS on Low and Medium settings, and nearly reach 60 FPS on High and Ultra. The 1440p results show playable frame rates on Low and Medium, with High and Ultra dipping below 50 FPS. The 4K results show only Low achieves 60 FPS, with all other settings falling below 50 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows 1080p is the most effective resolution for this pairing. At 1080p, the system delivers between 56 and 101 FPS across all settings, with even Ultra settings reaching 56 FPS. At 1440p, frame rates range from 45 to 81 FPS, and at 4K, only Low settings achieve 60 FPS. The 1080p results provide the most headroom for playable frame rates across all presets.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-12400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-12400's average benchmark score of 18683 places it within 0.7% of several rivals. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811 (0.7% ahead), and the Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519 (0.9% behind). These differences are effectively negligible for gaming performance.

Q: Which settings preset provides the best performance-to-quality trade-off?

A: The measured data supports Medium settings as the recommended preset. At 1080p, Medium produces 79 FPS average, which is 22 FPS below Low but provides substantially better visuals. At 1440p, Medium achieves 63 FPS, maintaining smoothness. At 4K, Medium produces 47 FPS with measured minimums of 40 FPS, which remains playable for a flight simulator.

Q: Does the RX 7600's VRAM capacity affect 4K performance?

A: The 8 GB GDDR6 memory appears to be a limiting factor at 4K. The data shows 4K performance drops significantly across all settings, with only Low achieving 60 FPS and Ultra falling to 33 FPS. The 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128-bit bus may struggle with the high-resolution textures Microsoft Flight Simulator demands at 4K.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 7600 rank against other GPUs?

A: The RX 7600 holds a 57th percentile ranking against all tested GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 15171 places it within 0.7% of its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15199 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 15082 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon 680M scores 15270 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti scores 15063 (0.7% behind).

Q: What frame rates can users expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data shows 63 FPS average at 1440p Medium, with minimums of 54 FPS and maximums of 73 FPS. This represents a stable, playable experience for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The frame time variance of 19 FPS between minimum and maximum suggests the system can handle scene complexity changes without major stuttering.