Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the benchmark data for the Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti places this combination near the very bottom of the performance hierarchy, ranking 1773 out of 1795 tested combos. The measured frames per second across all resolutions and settings presets confirm that this system is fundamentally limited in its ability to deliver a smooth flight simulation experience. The data indicates a configuration that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor, with the CPU demonstrating sufficient computational headroom that remains largely untapped due to the GPU's output ceiling.

Resolution Scaling

The relationship between resolution and average FPS reveals a clear pattern of GPU-bound performance. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 and then to 3840x2160 results in significant frame rate drops across every settings preset, confirming that the pixel throughput demand quickly overwhelms the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 24.9 at 1080p to 20.9 at 1440p, a reduction of 4 frames, and then plummets to 12.8 at 4K. This scaling behavior is characteristic of a graphics card with a 128-bit memory bus and 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth, where the increased pixel count at higher resolutions saturates the available memory bandwidth.

The Low preset shows the most dramatic absolute drop, from 37 FPS at 1080p down to 33.6 at 1440p and finally to 19.4 at 4K, representing a 47.5% reduction in performance from the lowest to the highest resolution tested. This steep decline indicates that even when the game’s visual complexity is minimized, the GPU’s raw fillrate and shading capacity, measured at 44.54 GPixel/s and 2.138 TFLOPS respectively, are insufficient for 4K output. The scaling from 1440p to 4K is particularly punishing, with the Ultra preset falling from 20 FPS to 12.2 FPS, a loss of 7.8 frames, which suggests that the card’s 32 ROPs become the critical bottleneck at high pixel densities.

Notably, the performance gap between 1080p and 1440p is smaller than the gap between 1440p and 4K for most presets. For Medium settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 5.9 FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 9 FPS. This non-linear scaling points to the 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer being exhausted at 4K, forcing the card into memory spillover scenarios that further degrade performance. The data suggests that 1080p is the only resolution where this combination approaches playable frame rates, and even then, only with reduced settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 provides a robust foundation for gaming, with 6 cores and 12 threads operating at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores are respectable, achieving a 3dmark single-thread score of 910 and a cinebench r23 multicore score of 15935. The processor’s performance percentile of 77 against all CPUs indicates it is a capable mid-range part, and its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the Intel Core i7-9700 with a delta of 0.1% and the Intel Core i5-11600K with a delta of 0.4%. This places the i5-12400 in a competitive position relative to previous-generation i7 parts.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU’s potential is not the limiting factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator for this configuration. The 3dmark 16-thread score of 5873 and the passmark multithread score of 18747 demonstrate strong multi-threaded capability, which is relevant for a flight simulator that must process complex physics and scenery data. Yet, across all resolutions, the frame rates remain low, and the pattern of results—where even the Low preset at 1080p only achieves 37 FPS—indicates the GPU is the primary constraint. The CPU’s single-thread performance, evidenced by a 3dmark single-thread score of 910 and a passmark single-thread score of 3456, is more than adequate to feed a GPU that is only producing 12-37 FPS.

The data implies that the i5-12400 is effectively waiting on the graphics card at every settings level. If the GPU were less restrictive, the CPU’s 18 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support would likely allow for higher frame rates, particularly in scenarios with dense scenery or complex weather systems. But the benchmark results show a system where the CPU’s role is diminished; the bottleneck is unequivocally the graphics subsystem, as evidenced by the consistent scaling of FPS with resolution changes.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the decisive limiting component in this pairing. With a 14 nm Pascal chip, 768 shading units, and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, the card delivers 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its benchmark positioning is weak, sitting in the 30th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 5316. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A with a delta of 0%, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M with a delta of 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon R7 240 with a delta of 0.7%, illustrating that this card performs at a level comparable to entry-level mobile and desktop parts from several years prior.

The GPU’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth are severely tested by Microsoft Flight Simulator’s vast streaming environments. The measured FPS at 1080p Low of 37 is the highest result achieved, and this drops to 12.8 at 4K High. These figures align with the card’s passmark directx 11 score of 45 and directx 12 score of 26, which are extremely low. The texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s are insufficient for the high-resolution textures and dense geometry that the simulator presents.

The GPU’s performance in synthetic benchmarks, such as the 3dmark steel nomad dx12 score of 305 and the passmark g3d score of 6340, corroborates the gaming results. The card’s memory clock of 1752 MHz, translating to 7 Gbps effective, provides just enough bandwidth for 1080p, but the jump to 1440p and 4K exposes the memory subsystem’s limitations. The data shows that the GTX 1050 Ti is a generation behind what is required for this game, and its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors underscore its design as a low-power, entry-level solution that is out of its depth in a modern flight simulator.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this system can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 37, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset. All other settings presets at 1080p produce lower results, with Medium at 30.7 FPS and High at 24.9 FPS.

Q: How does the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 5316, which is virtually identical to the NVIDIA GeForce 930A with a deltaPct of 0%. It is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240, while being 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12400 a bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: No, the data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor at all resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 12.2 to 19.4 across presets, which is far below what the CPU’s compute capabilities would permit. The CPU’s 3dmark single-thread score of 910 is not the constraint; rather, the GPU’s 2.138 TFLOPS of compute is the primary barrier.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset achieves an average of 33.6 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 20 FPS. This represents a 13.6 FPS difference, or a 40.5% reduction in performance when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: How does the CPU’s multicore performance relate to this game’s results?

A: The CPU’s multicore performance, shown by a cinebench r23 multicore score of 15935 and a passmark multithread score of 18747, is strong, but it does not translate into high frame rates because the GPU cannot keep up. The 3dmark 16-thread score of 5873 indicates the CPU is ready, but the measured FPS across all settings shows the GPU’s output is the ceiling.

Q: At which settings and resolution does the system cross the 30 FPS threshold?

A: The system achieves above 30 FPS only at 1920x1080 with Low settings (37 FPS) and Medium settings (30.7 FPS). At 2560x1440, the Low preset reaches 33.6 FPS, but all other combinations at that resolution fall below 30 FPS.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its best results. The Low preset delivers an average of 37 FPS, making it the only configuration that approaches a playable level. Medium settings drop to 30.7 FPS, High settings yield 24.9 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 22.8 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 14.2 FPS, indicating that the GPU’s limited resources are heavily taxed by higher visual fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades across the board. Low settings achieve 33.6 FPS, which is still above 30 but represents a 3.4 FPS drop from the same preset at 1080p. Medium settings fall to 24.8 FPS, High settings to 20.9 FPS, and Ultra to 20 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra widens to 13.6 FPS, but the absolute numbers are lower, showing the resolution’s impact on the GPU’s shading units and memory bandwidth.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain double-digit frame rates. The Low preset is the only one above 15 FPS, achieving 19.4 FPS. Medium settings produce 15.8 FPS, High settings 12.8 FPS, and Ultra settings 12.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K narrows to 7.2 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is so overwhelmed by pixel count that settings adjustments have diminishing returns. The 4 GB frame buffer and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are clearly exhausted at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only viable configuration for a minimally acceptable experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which yields 37 FPS. This is the sole preset and resolution combination that approaches a playable frame rate, and even then, it is below the 60 FPS target that most gamers prefer. The Medium preset at 1080p, at 30.7 FPS, is marginally playable but will exhibit noticeable stuttering in dense scenery or during rapid camera movements.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the High preset at 1080p offers 24.9 FPS, which is a compromise that may be tolerable for slow, methodical flight but is not recommended for dynamic maneuvers. All 1440p and 4K presets are effectively unplayable, with the highest result being 33.6 FPS at 1440p Low and the lowest being 12.2 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data strongly suggests that this system should be operated exclusively at 1080p, with settings kept at Low or Medium to maintain frame rates above 30 FPS.

The benchmark results show that Ultra settings provide no meaningful benefit at any resolution, as the GPU’s 2.138 TFLOPS of compute and 32 ROPs cannot handle the increased draw calls and post-processing effects. The performance difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 2.1 FPS, indicating that the card is already saturated. Therefore, the recommended path is to lock the resolution to 1920x1080 and select Low for the best frame rate, or Medium if the user accepts a lower, but still playable, experience. Higher resolutions should be avoided entirely, as the data shows a precipitous drop in performance that renders the simulator unusable.