Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance percentile for the Intel Core i5-12400 in this benchmark database?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 sits at the 72nd percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18,683. This places it slightly below the AMD EPYC 7643 (18,697, -0.1%), Intel Core i7-1355U (18,730, -0.3%), and AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (18,811, -0.7%), but above the Intel Core i3-14100F (18,519, +0.9%).

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The RX 7600 XT has an average benchmark score of 17,083, ranking at the 60th percentile among all GPUs. It is essentially neck-and-neck with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037, +0.3%) and AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, +0.4%), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17,208, -0.7%) by less than a percentage point.

Q: What is the measured average FPS at 1080p with Medium settings for this combo?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the measured average FPS is 82, with a minimum of 70 and a maximum of 95. This is the middle-ground preset that balances fluidity and visual fidelity, sitting between the 106 FPS Low preset and the 62 FPS High preset.

Q: Does the RX 7600 XT have enough VRAM for Microsoft Flight Simulator at high resolutions?

A: The RX 7600 XT comes equipped with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The data shows playable performance at 4K with Medium settings (49 FPS average), indicating the 16 GB capacity is sufficient for this title's high-resolution texture demands, though Ultra at 4K dips to 35 FPS.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested CPU-GPU pairs for this game?

A: This particular combination of Intel Core i5-12400 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT ranks 2,344 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle portion of the overall distribution.

Q: How does the CPU's single-thread performance compare to its multi-thread performance?

A: The Core i5-12400 scores 910 in 3dmark single-thread and 5,890 in 3dmark max-threads, while Cinebench R23 shows 2,257 single-core and 15,989 multi-core. The multi-core to single-core ratio of roughly 7:1 in 3dmark suggests strong scaling across its 6 cores and 12 threads.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this Intel Core i5-12400 + AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT combination at rank 2,344 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That ranking situates the pair in the 63rd percentile of tested configurations, meaning roughly 1,370 combos perform worse while about 2,344 perform better. For a flight simulator known for demanding both CPU and GPU heavily, this mid-pack position is telling — it suggests neither component is a standout performer in this specific workload, but the pairing is far from inadequate.

Breaking down the rank further, the combo's position reflects a balanced but not exceptional synergy. The CPU's 72nd percentile among all processors indicates it is a solid mid-range performer, while the GPU's 60th percentile shows it lags slightly behind in relative standing. When combined, the two components produce results that are less than the sum of their individual percentiles, hinting that Microsoft Flight Simulator's unique rendering demands may not fully utilize the strengths of either part. The measured FPS data reinforces this — at 1080p Ultra, the combo achieves 59 FPS, which is playable but not stellar, and at 4K Ultra, it drops to 35 FPS, which is borderline for smooth flight simulation.

Notably, the combo's rank sits below what the raw benchmark averages might suggest. The CPU's average score of 18,683 and GPU's average of 17,083 are both respectable, but the game-specific ranking reveals that Microsoft Flight Simulator's engine does not reward these components as generously as synthetic benchmarks do. This is particularly evident in the 4K results, where the GPU's 16 GB VRAM and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for memory capacity but the 128-bit bus limits throughput, causing frame rates to drop more precipitously than at lower resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, along with 32 ray tracing cores. The GPU's clock speeds are specified as a base of 1,980 MHz, a game clock of 2,470 MHz, and a boost clock of 2,755 MHz, with memory running at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). These specifications translate to a pixel rate of 176.3 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 352.6 GTexel/s, and 22.57 TFLOPS of FP32 compute performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is primarily to handle the rendering of terrain, aircraft models, and weather effects, all of which are graphically intensive. The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is a critical asset here, as the game's high-resolution textures and detailed scenery can easily consume large amounts of VRAM. At 4K High settings, the combo averages 37 FPS, which suggests the GPU is working near its limits but not entirely bottlenecked. The 128-bit memory bus, however, is a limiting factor — the 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is modest for a card in this class, and the data shows that memory-intensive scenarios at higher resolutions cause frame rates to drop.

The GPU's 60th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates it is an average performer in the broader market, but its nearest rivals — the GTX 690 and HD 7970M — are older architectures that the RX 7600 XT edges out by less than half a percentage point. Meanwhile, the RTX 3070's 0.7% lead is marginal, suggesting the RX 7600 XT is competitive with that card despite being from a different generation. For this game specifically, the GPU's 22.57 TFLOPS of compute power is sufficient for DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, which Microsoft Flight Simulator leverages, but the data shows that at Ultra settings across all resolutions, the GPU becomes the primary constraint, with 4K Ultra dropping to 35 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. Starting at 1920x1080, the combo delivers 106 FPS on Low, 82 FPS on Medium (with a range of 70-95), 62 FPS on High, and 59 FPS on Ultra. These numbers show a clear progression: as settings increase, frame rates decrease, but even at Ultra, the 59 FPS average is smooth for a flight simulator, which often prioritizes stability over raw speed.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops are noticeable but not dramatic. Low settings yield 85 FPS, Medium produces 66 FPS (ranging from 56-76), High delivers 50 FPS, and Ultra drops to 47 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 3 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features have diminishing returns at this resolution. The 1080p to 1440p transition shows an average FPS reduction of about 20-25% across settings, indicating the GPU is beginning to feel the pressure of higher pixel counts.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes more significantly. Low settings produce 63 FPS, Medium averages 49 FPS (with a range of 42-56), High drops to 37 FPS, and Ultra falls to 35 FPS. The jump from 1440p to 4K results in a 35-40% FPS reduction, which is steeper than the 1080p to 1440p transition. This nonlinear scaling points to the GPU's memory bandwidth becoming a bottleneck at higher resolutions, as the 128-bit bus struggles to feed the render pipeline with the increased pixel data. Notably, the min FPS at 4K Medium is 42, which is still playable, but the 35 FPS average at 4K Ultra is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay in a simulator that requires precise control.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend heavily on the target resolution and the user's preference for visual fidelity versus frame rate smoothness. At 1080p, the High preset at 62 FPS offers a good balance — it is 3 FPS above Ultra but with noticeably better performance headroom, while Medium at 82 FPS is even smoother but sacrifices some visual quality. For users with 60 Hz displays, High at 1080p is the recommendation, as it stays above the refresh rate and provides a rich visual experience.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 66 FPS is the clear winner. It delivers a 20 FPS improvement over High (50 FPS) and 19 FPS over Ultra (47 FPS), while maintaining a minimum of 56 FPS, which ensures smooth flight even in complex scenes. The gap between High and Ultra at this resolution is negligible at 3 FPS, so there is little reason to choose Ultra over High; however, Medium's 16 FPS advantage over High makes it the most playable option without sacrificing too much detail.

For 4K, the recommendation is more nuanced. Low settings at 63 FPS are fully playable, but they strip away much of the visual richness that makes Microsoft Flight Simulator immersive. Medium at 49 FPS is a compromise — it provides a 14 FPS improvement over High (37 FPS) and 14 FPS over Ultra (35 FPS), with a minimum of 42 FPS that keeps the experience stable. Given that the difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 2 FPS, Ultra offers no practical benefit over High, but Medium's substantial lead makes it the best choice for maintaining a playable frame rate while retaining acceptable visuals.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It features a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and its 65 W TDP makes it a power-efficient choice for gaming systems.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical for physics calculations, flight dynamics, and AI traffic management, all of which are heavily single-threaded in nature. The CPU's 3dmark single-thread score of 910 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,257 indicate strong per-core performance, which is essential for this game's engine. The multi-thread scores — 5,890 in 3dmark max-threads and 15,989 in Cinebench R23 — show that the processor can also handle multi-threaded workloads when needed, but the game's reliance on single-thread performance means these figures are less relevant.

The CPU's 72nd percentile ranking among all processors reflects its position as a solid mid-range part, but its nearest rivals include the EPYC 7643 and Ryzen AI 5 330, which are more specialized or newer parts. The data suggests that in this combo, the CPU is not the primary bottleneck — the GPU's 60th percentile ranking is lower, and the FPS scaling across resolutions indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at higher settings. At 1080p Low, the 106 FPS average shows the CPU can feed the GPU adequately, but as resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows disproportionately, confirming that the i5-12400 has headroom to spare.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the combo scales from 1080p to 4K, offering insights into which component is the limiting factor at different settings. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 106 at 1080p to 85 at 1440p and 63 at 4K, representing a 20% and 41% reduction respectively. This scaling is relatively gentle, suggesting that at Low settings, the CPU is still able to keep up with the GPU's demands, and the frame rate is more evenly balanced between the two components.

At Medium settings, the progression is 82 FPS at 1080p, 66 FPS at 1440p, and 49 FPS at 4K, with reductions of 20% and 40% from the previous resolution. The nearly identical percentage drops across Low and Medium indicate that the workload is scaling linearly with pixel count, which points to the GPU being the primary constraint as resolution increases. The min FPS values at Medium — 70 at 1080p, 56 at 1440p, and 42 at 4K — show that the frame rate consistency also degrades with resolution, but not catastrophically.

At High settings, the FPS drops from 62 at 1080p to 50 at 1440p and 37 at 4K, representing 19% and 40% reductions. The 1440p to 4K drop of 26% is the largest percentage decrease across all settings, indicating that the GPU's memory bandwidth is becoming a significant bottleneck at this resolution. At Ultra, the pattern continues: 59 FPS at 1080p, 47 FPS at 1440p, and 35 FPS at 4K, with reductions of 20% and 41%. The fact that the percentage drops are nearly identical across all settings levels — around 20% for 1080p to 1440p and 40% for 1440p to 4K — strongly suggests that the GPU's 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is the limiting factor, as the 128-bit bus cannot scale to meet the demands of 4K rendering. The CPU, with its strong single-thread performance, is not the constraint in this scenario.