Microsoft Flight Simulator

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock of 2.50 GHz can boost up to 4.40 GHz, which provides the single-thread headroom that flight simulators often rely on for frame pacing. The processor carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 80 KB of L1 per core. In the benchmark database, the i5-12400 sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19850.

The nearest rivals in the CPU benchmark data frame its position clearly. The Intel Core i7-9700 scores 19831, a delta of 0.1% — essentially a statistical tie. The Intel Core i7-8700 scores 19894, which puts the i5-12400 0.2% behind. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX scores 19928, placing the i5-12400 0.4% behind that workstation part. The Intel Core i5-11600K scores 19771, meaning the i5-12400 is 0.4% ahead of that previous-generation chip. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, so the i5-12400's compute throughput is effectively matched with several older high-end parts.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the data suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at most settings. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 164.6 FPS, which is far above typical display refresh rates. Even at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 54.2 FPS, but the CPU's role in that decline is secondary to the GPU's workload. The 6-core configuration with 12 threads is sufficient to feed the RTX 4070 at lower resolutions; the measured FPS at 1080p Low is more than triple the 4K Ultra figure, indicating the CPU is keeping up with the graphics card's output at the frame rates shown.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 achieves a rank of 424 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the top 24% of all configurations tested for this game. The rank is a composite measure that accounts for performance across all resolution and settings combinations in the measured data.

The position at 424 of 1795 suggests a well-balanced setup. The i5-12400's 77th percentile CPU standing and the RTX 4070's 81st percentile GPU standing indicate both components are above average in their respective pools. The combo rank being slightly below the individual component percentiles reflects the game's demanding nature at higher settings — the GPU's 12 GB VRAM and 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are being exercised heavily in this title.

Compared to the nearest GPU rivals, the RTX 4070's average benchmark score of 37283 places it just 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56's 37507. The NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A scores 38008, putting the RTX 4070 1.9% behind that part, while the RTX 4080 Mobile scores 38135 for a 2.2% gap. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36371, meaning the RTX 4070 is 2.5% ahead of that mobile part. These tight deltas in synthetic benchmarks do not directly translate to the measured FPS in Flight Simulator, where the RTX 4070's dedicated ray tracing cores and Ada Lovelace architecture provide advantages the raw scores do not capture.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop varies by settings preset. At Low settings, the frame rate falls from 164.6 FPS at 1080p to 132 FPS at 1440p, then to 97.5 FPS at 4K. That is a 40.8% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the drop is from 130.8 FPS at 1080p to 102.2 FPS at 1440p and 75.4 FPS at 4K — a 42.4% decline. High settings show 94.5 FPS at 1080p, 77.2 FPS at 1440p, and 55.3 FPS at 4K, for a 41.5% reduction. Ultra settings produce 93.9 FPS at 1080p, 73 FPS at 1440p, and 54.2 FPS at 4K, a 42.3% drop.

The similarity of these percentage drops across all four presets indicates a GPU-bound scenario at higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the 1080p to 1440p transition would show a smaller FPS penalty because the CPU workload would remain constant while pixel count rises. Instead, the data shows a nearly linear relationship between resolution and frame rate, which is characteristic of the GPU processing all the pixels. The RTX 4070's 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 455.4 GTexel/s texture rate are being fully utilized as resolution climbs.

The 4K to 1080p ratio for Low settings is 97.5 divided by 164.6, which equals 0.592. For Ultra settings, the ratio is 54.2 divided by 93.9, which equals 0.577. These ratios being close suggests the scaling behavior is consistent regardless of quality preset, reinforcing the conclusion that the GPU is the constraining component at every resolution tested.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

At 1080p, the measured average FPS values are 164.6 for Low, 130.8 for Medium, 94.5 for High, and 93.9 for Ultra. The gap between High and Ultra is a mere 0.6 FPS, indicating the Ultra preset adds substantial visual complexity without meaningful frame rate cost at this resolution. The jump from Low to Medium is 33.8 FPS, while Medium to High costs 36.3 FPS. The Low setting provides more than 1.75 times the frame rate of Ultra, which is a significant headroom for players with high refresh rate displays.

At 1440p, the measured values are 132 FPS for Low, 102.2 FPS for Medium, 77.2 FPS for High, and 73 FPS for Ultra. The Low to Medium step costs 29.8 FPS, Medium to High costs 25 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 4.2 FPS. The 1440p results show a similar pattern to 1080p where Ultra offers minimal additional cost over High, but the total spread between Low and Ultra is 59 FPS, representing a 44.7% reduction from the lowest preset.

At 4K, the data shows 97.5 FPS for Low, 75.4 FPS for Medium, 55.3 FPS for High, and 54.2 FPS for Ultra. The Low to Medium step costs 22.1 FPS, Medium to High costs 20.1 FPS, and High to Ultra costs a marginal 1.1 FPS. The 4K Ultra figure of 54.2 FPS is just above the 50 FPS threshold that many players consider playable for a flight simulator, while the 4K High result of 55.3 FPS is nearly identical. The Low preset at 4K achieves 97.5 FPS, which is still smoother than any preset at 1080p except Low.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using TSMC's 5 nm process. It contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates with a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz, while its memory runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed. The 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus provides 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

In Flight Simulator, the 12 GB VRAM capacity is likely sufficient for the 4K Ultra preset, as the measured FPS of 54.2 does not show catastrophic frame drops that would indicate memory swapping. The 504.2 GB/s bandwidth is being taxed heavily at 4K, where the pixel throughput demand rises with each resolution step. The GPU's 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 29.15 TFLOPS of FP16 compute are consistent with the measured scaling — the card has enough raw compute for 1080p and 1440p, but the 4K results show the limits of the memory subsystem.

The RTX 4070's 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores are present in the hardware, though the measured FPS data does not isolate ray tracing performance. The card's 81st percentile standing among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37283, aligns with the observed frame rates: the GPU is clearly above average but not in the top tier, which matches the 4K results hovering just above 54 FPS on Ultra. The 200 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest this is a power-efficient part that sustains its boost clock under load, which is reflected in the consistent scaling pattern across resolutions.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured data provides clear guidance for optimal settings at each resolution. At 1080p, the High preset delivers 94.5 FPS, which is only 0.6 FPS more than Ultra's 93.9 FPS. Since Ultra provides better visual quality at essentially the same frame rate, the Ultra preset is the reasonable choice for 1080p gaming. The Low preset's 164.6 FPS is unnecessary for most displays, though it could serve competitive scenarios where maximum responsiveness is prioritized.

At 1440p, the High preset delivers 77.2 FPS while Ultra delivers 73 FPS. The 4.2 FPS difference is small, but the Ultra preset's frame rate of 73 FPS is still comfortably above 60 FPS. For players who prioritize visual fidelity, Ultra at 1440p is viable. Those who want a safety buffer for complex scenery might prefer High at 77.2 FPS, which offers a 5.8% frame rate improvement over Ultra. The Medium preset at 102.2 FPS is the best choice for high refresh rate 1440p monitors, as it provides a 32.4% improvement over High.

At 4K, the Ultra preset delivers 54.2 FPS and High delivers 55.3 FPS — a negligible difference of 1.1 FPS. Both are playable for a flight simulator, but the Medium preset at 75.4 FPS provides a much smoother experience with a 36.2% improvement over High. The Low preset at 97.5 FPS is the only 4K option that approaches 100 FPS, making it the choice for players who prioritize smoothness over visual detail. Given that the High and Ultra presets are nearly identical in measured FPS, the data suggests that the Ultra preset is the better value in visual terms at 4K, as it provides the same performance with presumably higher graphical fidelity. For the most balanced experience across all resolutions, the Medium preset offers the best frame rate headroom without sacrificing too much visual quality, as evidenced by the 4K Medium result of 75.4 FPS being 39.1% higher than the 4K Ultra result.