Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-12400 + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER

The Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER delivers a playable but constrained experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing a clear pattern: the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor as resolution climbs, while the CPU holds its own even at 1080p. The combo ranks 1214th out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database, which aligns with the measured frame rates that range from a low of 34.8 FPS at 4K High to a high of 97.4 FPS at 1080p Low.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, revealing that the RTX 2060 SUPER is the bottleneck at higher resolutions. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 56.9 FPS at 1920x1080 to 47.4 FPS at 2560x1440, then further to 34.8 FPS at 3840x2160 — a total reduction of 38.8% from 1080p to 4K. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario: the pixel count quadruples from 1080p to 4K, and the frame rate drops almost proportionally, indicating that the graphics card is saturated while the CPU has headroom to spare.

The Low settings row tells a similar story but with a different starting point. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 97.4 FPS, which drops to 81.5 FPS at 1440p and 60.5 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low result is notably higher than the 4K High result (60.5 vs 34.8 FPS), showing that lowering settings can reclaim significant performance at the highest resolution. The gap between Low and High at 4K is 25.7 FPS, while at 1080p that same gap is 40.5 FPS (97.4 vs 56.9), suggesting that at lower resolutions the CPU begins to play a larger role in limiting performance.

The Medium and Ultra presets follow the expected hierarchy, but the data shows that Ultra offers almost no benefit over High at 4K: 35.2 FPS versus 34.8 FPS, a negligible 0.4 FPS difference. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that the jump from High to Ultra adds visual detail without meaningful frame rate headroom.

GPU Role

The RTX 2060 SUPER carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with base and boost clocks of 1470 MHz and 1650 MHz respectively. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast terrain and scenery data, this memory configuration is sufficient for the measured resolutions, but the raw compute power — 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 — is what limits high-resolution performance.

The GPU's benchmark scores contextualize its position: it scores 16462 in Passmark G3D and 19774 average across all tests, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070, scores 19680, a delta of just 0.5%, meaning the 2060 SUPER is essentially on par with the next tier up in synthetic tests. However, in this game's measured results, the 2060 SUPER's 4K High average of 34.8 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold that most users would consider smooth, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component at that resolution.

The 8 GB VRAM capacity is not the constraining factor in these results — none of the measured rows show signs of texture thrashing or memory-related stutters (min FPS is not reported). Instead, the data points to the GPU's shading and rasterization throughput as the bottleneck. The 2176 shading units and 64 ROPs are tasked with rendering complex aircraft cockpits and photogrammetry cities, which explains why even Medium settings at 4K only reach 47.8 FPS.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 provides 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 18 MB of shared L3 cache is a key asset for flight simulation, which often involves large working sets of scenery data. The CPU's benchmark results are strong: it scores 15935 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2249 in single-core, with an average benchmark score of 19850 placing it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs.

Comparatively, the i5-12400 sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i5-11600K (19771) and 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-9700 (19831), while trailing the Intel Core i7-8700 by 0.2%. These margins are negligible in real-world gaming, confirming that the CPU is not the weak link in this combo. The 3dmark scores reinforce this: 5873 in 16-thread and 910 in single-thread tests show balanced multithreaded and single-threaded performance.

In the measured game data, the CPU's role becomes apparent at lower resolutions and settings. At 1080p Low, the combo hits 97.4 FPS, which is the highest measured value — and at this point, the CPU is likely approaching its limit, as the GPU has less work per pixel. The fact that 1080p Ultra (53.7 FPS) is lower than 1080p High (56.9 FPS) by 3.2 FPS, while 1440p Ultra (47.5 FPS) is nearly identical to 1440p High (47.4 FPS), suggests that the game's simulation logic (CPU-bound) and rendering pipeline (GPU-bound) are balancing differently across settings, but the CPU maintains consistent performance without becoming a hard bottleneck.

FAQ

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

A: Based on the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where average FPS stays above 53.7 across all settings, with Low reaching 97.4 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low (81.5 FPS) and Medium (65 FPS) exceed 60 FPS, while 4K never reaches 60 FPS at any setting.

Q: Does the RTX 2060 SUPER's 8 GB VRAM limit performance in this game?

A: No direct evidence from the measured rows indicates VRAM limitations. All 12 measured configurations produce valid average FPS values without reported min FPS drops, and the 448.0 GB/s bandwidth appears sufficient for the tested settings at all three resolutions.

Q: How does this CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 19850, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-9700 (19831) and 0.4% higher than the Intel Core i5-11600K (19771). It trails the Intel Core i7-8700 by 0.2% (19894) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX by 0.4% (19928).

Q: Is this combo better suited for 1080p or 1440p gaming?

A: The data shows 1080p is the safer choice for consistent frame rates, as all four settings (Low 97.4, Medium 80.9, High 56.9, Ultra 53.7) are playable. At 1440p, only Low and Medium exceed 60 FPS, while High and Ultra hover around 47 FPS.

Q: What is the FPS difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: Across all resolutions, the difference is minimal. At 1080p, Ultra is 3.2 FPS lower than High (53.7 vs 56.9). At 1440p, Ultra is 0.1 FPS higher than High (47.5 vs 47.4). At 4K, Ultra is 0.4 FPS higher than High (35.2 vs 34.8).

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1214th out of 1795 total combinations, placing it in the 32nd percentile of the database. This rank reflects the mid-range nature of both components in this demanding simulation title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce 97.4 FPS, Medium drops to 80.9 FPS, High falls to 56.9 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 53.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 16.5 FPS reduction, while Medium to High costs 24 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 3.2 FPS. This suggests that the Medium preset offers a strong balance between visual fidelity and performance at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates shift downward across the board. Low settings average 81.5 FPS, Medium averages 65 FPS, High drops to 47.4 FPS, and Ultra is nearly identical at 47.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium here is 16.5 FPS, the same as at 1080p, but the gap between Medium and High widens to 17.6 FPS. Notably, Ultra provides no meaningful improvement over High at this resolution, differing by just 0.1 FPS.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal for smooth play. Low settings yield 60.5 FPS, Medium drops to 47.8 FPS, High falls to 34.8 FPS, and Ultra is 35.2 FPS. The Low-to-Medium gap is 12.7 FPS, and the Medium-to-High gap is 13 FPS, showing that each settings tier costs roughly the same amount of performance at 4K. The High-to-Ultra gap of 0.4 FPS confirms that Ultra is not worth the visual overhead at this resolution.

Settings Recommendations

For users prioritizing smooth frame rates, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the clear choice, delivering 97.4 FPS — the highest measured result in the entire dataset. However, for a better visual experience without sacrificing too much performance, Medium at 1080p (80.9 FPS) is the recommended balance, as it stays well above 60 FPS while offering improved detail over Low.

At 2560x1440, Medium (65 FPS) is the only preset that combines playable performance with reasonable visual quality. Low (81.5 FPS) is smoother but sacrifices detail, while High (47.4 FPS) and Ultra (47.5 FPS) fall below the 60 FPS threshold. For 4K users, Low (60.5 FPS) is the only playable option, and even it barely clears 60 FPS; Medium (47.8 FPS) and above are not recommended for consistent gameplay.

The data strongly suggests that Ultra settings are never worth the performance cost in this combo. At every resolution, Ultra delivers either identical or slightly lower FPS than High (at 4K, 35.2 vs 34.8; at 1440p, 47.5 vs 47.4), with no measurable benefit. The exception is 1080p where Ultra is 3.2 FPS slower than High, making High the better choice for maximum detail at that resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1214 out of 1795 places it in the bottom third of all tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a demanding title, and the data reflects that: the RTX 2060 SUPER's 63rd percentile GPU ranking and the i5-12400's 77th percentile CPU ranking combine to produce a system that is capable at lower resolutions but struggles at 4K.

Relative to its component peers, the GPU is closer to its rivals than the CPU. The RTX 2060 SUPER's average benchmark score of 19774 is within 0.5% of the RTX 2070 (19680) and 0.3% of the GTX TITAN (19706), meaning the GPU is performing near the top of its class. The CPU, meanwhile, is effectively tied with its nearest rivals, with deltas of 0.1% or less against the i7-9700 and i7-8700.

The overall rank of 1214th suggests that while individual components are competitive within their tiers, the combination is not optimized for this specific game's heavy demands. The measured FPS at 4K High (34.8 FPS) is below the playable threshold, and even 1440p High (47.4 FPS) is marginal. For users targeting 60 FPS, this combo is best suited to 1080p Medium or Low, or 1440p Low. The data indicates that upgrading either component would improve the rank, but the GPU is the more urgent bottleneck based on the resolution scaling analysis.