Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 combination represents a pairing of a modern 6-core processor with a venerable Pascal-era graphics card. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, benchmark results show that this system’s performance is heavily dictated by the GPU, particularly at higher resolutions, while the CPU provides a solid foundation that rarely becomes the primary constraint. The measured data reveals a system capable of smooth gameplay at 1080p with adjusted settings, but one that struggles to maintain playable frame rates at 4K on higher presets.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured FPS data, 1920x1080 with Low settings delivers the highest average frame rate at 80.9 FPS. For a balance of visual quality and performance, 2560x1440 with Medium settings provides an average of 51.5 FPS, which is a more playable option than High presets at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 19850, placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. It performs within 0.4% of the Intel Core i5-11600K and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-9700, while being 0.2% slower than the Intel Core i7-8700 and 0.4% slower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX.

Q: What is the GPU's general performance standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 holds a 51st percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 12331. It is 0.7% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 but 1.3% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and 1.4% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: What are the key specifications of the processor and graphics card?

A: The CPU features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The GPU is built on the Pascal architecture with a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, paired with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How significant is the frame rate drop when moving from 1080p to 4K at Ultra settings?

A: The data shows a substantial reduction. At 1920x1080 Ultra, the average FPS is 43.9, while at 3840x2160 Ultra, it falls to 24.8 FPS. This represents a drop of approximately 19.1 FPS, or a 43.5% decrease in performance.

Q: Does this system rank highly among all tested combinations for this game?

A: No, the combo rank is 1528 out of 1795 tested combos. This places the system in the lower percentile of configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator, indicating that while it can run the game, many other combinations deliver superior performance.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings preset offers the most playable experience. At 1920x1080, all presets are technically playable, with Low achieving 80.9 FPS, Medium achieving 65.2 FPS, and High achieving 47.0 FPS. Ultra dips to 43.9 FPS, which is still above the 30 FPS threshold generally considered acceptable for a flight simulator, but the medium preset offers a substantial visual upgrade over Low for a modest performance cost.

Shifting to 2560x1440, the options narrow. The Low preset delivers 68.6 FPS, which is smooth, but the Medium preset at 51.5 FPS remains fluid and likely provides a much richer visual environment for a sim that relies heavily on scenery detail. High at 39 FPS is borderline, and Ultra at 39.9 FPS is similar, suggesting that the GPU is becoming a limiting factor at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, only the Low preset, with an average of 47.7 FPS, provides a consistently smooth experience. Medium drops to 38.2 FPS, which may still be acceptable, but High at 26.7 FPS and Ultra at 24.8 FPS fall below the standard playability threshold. For the best balance of visual fidelity and smooth frame rates, the data suggests using Medium settings at 2560x1440, or Low settings at 1080p for the highest frame rates.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 provides the computational backbone for this system. Its 6 cores and 12 threads are well-suited for modern game engines, and its boost clock of 4.40 GHz ensures strong single-threaded performance, which is often critical in flight simulators that have significant simulation logic. The processor’s 18 MB of shared L3 cache helps reduce memory latency.

In general benchmarks, the i5-12400 posts a single-thread score of 3456 in PassMark and a multicore score of 18747. Its Cinebench R23 scores are 2249 for single-core and 15935 for multi-core. These numbers place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong overall performance. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-9700, has a nearly identical average score, with a delta of only 0.1%, suggesting that the newer i5 matches the older i7 in general compute tasks.

For this specific game, the CPU’s role appears to be that of a capable enabler rather than a bottleneck. At 1080p, where the GPU has less work to do per frame, the CPU must keep up with the game’s physics and weather simulation. The 12 threads provide ample parallelism for these tasks. However, the measured FPS data shows that the system’s performance scaling from 1080p to 4K is primarily driven by the GPU’s workload, implying that the CPU is not the primary factor limiting frame rates at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks 1528 out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 15% of all tested systems, which is a low ranking. The percentile of 77 for the CPU and 51 for the GPU indicates that while the processor is above average, the graphics card is squarely in the middle of the pack, and the pairing does not produce a result that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This low combo ranking is likely due to the game’s high graphical demands, which stress the GPU significantly. The GTX 1070’s 8 GB of VRAM and its overall compute capability are insufficient for the highest settings at high resolutions, dragging the overall experience down. The data suggests that many other tested systems, likely with more modern or higher-tier GPUs, are able to achieve much higher frame rates, thus pushing this combo down the rankings. The CPU’s strong benchmark scores do not compensate for the GPU’s limitations in this specific workload.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is the primary performance limiter in this configuration. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s, which is a respectable figure but shows its age. The GPU’s boost clock of 1683 MHz and its 1920 shading units are typical for a mid-range card from the Pascal generation. Its FP32 performance is rated at 6.463 TFLOPS.

The GPU’s general benchmark score of 12331 places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, making it an average performer by current standards. Its nearest rivals, the GTX 1650 SUPER and GTX 880M, score similarly, with deltas of -1.4% and -1.3% respectively. This indicates that the GTX 1070 is a solid, but not exceptional, graphics processor.

In the measured FPS data, the GPU’s influence is clear. At 4K Ultra, the system manages only 24.8 FPS, a stark contrast to the 80.9 FPS at 1080p Low. This 4K result is well below the 30 FPS minimum for a playable experience. Even at 1440p, the Ultra preset only reaches 39.9 FPS. The data indicates that the GTX 1070 is overwhelmed by the game’s high-resolution textures and complex rendering, making lower settings and resolutions necessary for a smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system delivers an average of 80.9 FPS on Low, 65.2 FPS on Medium, 47.0 FPS on High, and 43.9 FPS on Ultra. This shows a clear and expected decline as settings increase, with a 37.0 FPS difference between Low and Ultra.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 68.6 FPS on Low, 51.5 FPS on Medium, 39.0 FPS on High, and 39.9 FPS on Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a performance ceiling at this resolution. The difference between Low and Ultra is 28.7 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 47.7 FPS on Low, 38.2 FPS on Medium, 26.7 FPS on High, and 24.8 FPS on Ultra. The system is only playable on Low and Medium at this resolution. The jump from Low to Medium costs 9.5 FPS, while moving to High costs an additional 11.5 FPS, demonstrating the heavy toll that 4K rendering takes on the GTX 1070.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals how the system’s performance scales with resolution. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on the Low preset results in a drop from 80.9 FPS to 68.6 FPS, a reduction of 12.3 FPS. Moving further to 3840x2160 on Low yields 47.7 FPS, a 33.2 FPS drop from 1080p. This shows that even at the lowest settings, the GPU’s workload increases significantly with resolution.

On the Ultra preset, the scaling is more dramatic. From 1080p to 1440p, the FPS goes from 43.9 to 39.9, a small 4.0 FPS decline. However, from 1440p to 4K, it plunges from 39.9 to 24.8 FPS, a 15.1 FPS drop. This pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p, the CPU is likely providing enough data to keep the GPU busy, but as resolution increases, the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth become the bottleneck.

The data implies that the system is well-balanced at 1080p, where the CPU can feed the GPU adequately. At 4K, the GTX 1070’s 256.3 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB of VRAM are insufficient, causing a severe performance hit. The scaling behavior confirms that for this game, the GTX 1070 is a 1080p-class card, and attempting to push it to 4K will result in sub-30 FPS performance on higher settings.