Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the processor and the graphics card heavily, and the measured data for this specific combination of an Intel Core i5-12400 and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 reveals a system with significant raw power that is nonetheless balanced by its mid-range CPU. The benchmark results show a clear progression of performance scaling across resolutions and settings, indicating that this pairing is capable of delivering a highly playable experience even at the highest visual fidelity, though the CPU does create a noticeable ceiling at lower resolutions. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS, component roles, and optimal settings based strictly on the provided data.

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, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It features 18 MB of shared L3 cache and a 65 W TDP, making it a mainstream desktop part. In synthetic benchmarks, its performance is solid, scoring 15,935 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,249 in single-core, with a Passmark multithread score of 18,747 and a single-thread score of 3,456. Its average benchmark score of 19,850 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, and it trades blows closely with its nearest rivals, being just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-9700 and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i5-11600K, while sitting 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-8700.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded and physics simulation workloads, the i5-12400's single-core strength is crucial. The measured FPS data shows that at 1920x1080, the CPU is likely the primary limiter. The difference between Low and Ultra settings at this resolution is only 49.9 FPS (183.4 versus 133.5), which is proportionally less than the scaling seen at higher resolutions where the GPU takes on more work. This suggests that while the CPU can push frame rates well above 130 FPS even on Ultra, its 6-core/12-thread configuration and clock speeds prevent it from fully saturating the RTX 5090's potential at lower resolutions. The processor's performance relative to its rivals, being virtually identical to older i7 parts, indicates that this is a capable but not top-tier CPU for this simulator; it provides a strong foundation but does not have the headroom of higher-core-count or higher-clocked parts.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is an absolute powerhouse, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a 5 nm process. It houses 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering a massive 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. Its core clocks are a 2017 MHz base and 2407 MHz boost, and it boasts 21,760 shading units, 170 RT cores, and 680 tensor cores. The GPU's raw compute is staggering, with an FP32 performance of 104.8 TFLOPS. In synthetic tests, it scores 39,650 in Passmark G3D and 14,411 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 84,306. Its closest rival is the RTX 5090 D, which it leads by just 0.1%, and it is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W6600.

The GPU's role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is to render the vast, detailed scenery and weather effects. The measured data shows the RTX 5090 scales predictably with resolution. At 3840x2160, the GPU is thoroughly engaged, with frame rates dropping from 138.9 FPS on Low to 79.1 FPS on Ultra. The 32 GB VRAM buffer is more than sufficient for this title, ensuring that texture streaming at Ultra settings is not a bottleneck. The GPU's immense bandwidth and shading power are what allow the system to maintain playable frame rates at 4K Ultra, a feat that many lesser cards could not achieve. However, at 1920x1080, the GPU's massive headroom is wasted, as the CPU limits performance, evidenced by the relatively small spread between settings (183.4 FPS Low versus 133.5 FPS Ultra) compared to the 4K spread, where the GPU's load varies much more dramatically.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the best resolution to run this game with this CPU and GPU combo?

A: The data shows that 2560x1440 offers an excellent balance. On Ultra settings, it achieves 106.4 FPS, which is a solid 34.5% jump over the 79.1 FPS at 3840x2160 Ultra, while still providing a significant visual upgrade over 1080p. If you prioritize maximum fidelity, 4K Ultra is still playable at 79.1 FPS.

Q: How does the i5-12400 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-9700, in overall CPU benchmarks?

A: The i5-12400 has an average benchmark score of 19,850, which is only 0.1% higher than the Intel Core i7-9700's 19,831. This indicates that in general processing tasks, the two are virtually identical in performance, despite the architectural differences.

Q: Is the RTX 5090 significantly faster than the RTX 5090 D?

A: According to the benchmark data, the RTX 5090 has an average score of 84,306, while the RTX 5090 D scores 84,241. This puts the standard 5090 just 0.1% ahead, making the performance difference negligible in practice.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1920x1080 with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS for this combination at 1920x1080 with Medium settings is 166.1 FPS. This is a very high frame rate, suggesting that the CPU is still providing enough performance for a very smooth experience at this resolution.

Q: Does lowering settings from Ultra to Low at 4K provide a linear performance improvement?

A: No, it is not linear. At 3840x2160, moving from Ultra (79.1 FPS) to High (85.1 FPS) is only a 7.6% increase, but moving from High to Medium (110.4 FPS) is a 29.7% increase, and from Medium to Low (138.9 FPS) is a 25.8% increase. The most significant gains come from dropping below High settings.

Q: How does this system's performance rank among all tested configurations?

A: This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 ranks 40th out of 1,795 tested combos for this game. This places it in the top 2.2% of all systems tested, indicating it is a very high-performing setup.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience depends heavily on the user's display resolution and refresh rate. For 3840x2160, the "High" preset is the optimal choice for a balance of visual quality and performance, delivering 85.1 FPS. This is comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay and is only 6 FPS less than the 79.1 FPS at Ultra, but with a significant reduction in rendering load that could help with stability. Pushing to Ultra drops the frame rate to 79.1 FPS, which is still playable but sacrifices some fluidity for marginal visual gains at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the "High" preset is also a strong recommendation, hitting 111.5 FPS, which is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. The "Medium" preset at 150.3 FPS offers a massive performance boost if you have a 144Hz or 165Hz display, but the visual compromise from High is notable. For 1920x1080, the "High" preset at 143.5 FPS is the sweet spot, providing a very high frame rate that will satisfy most gamers. While "Ultra" at 133.5 FPS is also viable, the 10 FPS difference is not worth the extra load on the system. In all cases, the "Low" preset is unnecessary for playability, as even the "Ultra" preset maintains a minimum of 79.1 FPS across all resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 achieves a rank of 40 out of 1,795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is an exceptionally strong result, placing the system in the top 2% of all configurations tested. The high ranking is largely attributable to the RTX 5090's dominant GPU performance, which carries the system at higher resolutions where the CPU is less of a bottleneck. However, the rank also reflects the i5-12400's ability to keep up at lower resolutions, preventing the system from falling further down the list. The data indicates that while this CPU is not the fastest available, its pairing with the top-tier GPU is effective enough to secure a top-40 finish, which reflects the overall balance of the build for this specific simulator.

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

The following is the complete measured FPS data for this combination, showing the average frames per second at each resolution and settings preset.

At 3840x2160, the frame rates are as follows:

• Low: 138.9 FPS
• Medium: 110.4 FPS
• High: 85.1 FPS
• Ultra: 79.1 FPS

At 2560x1440, the frame rates are as follows:

• Low: 167.4 FPS
• Medium: 150.3 FPS
• High: 111.5 FPS
• Ultra: 106.4 FPS

At 1920x1080, the frame rates are as follows:

• Low: 183.4 FPS
• Medium: 166.1 FPS
• High: 143.5 FPS
• Ultra: 133.5 FPS

The data shows a clear trend: as resolution decreases, the frame rates increase, but the gap between settings narrows. At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is 59.8 FPS, while at 1080p, it narrows to 49.9 FPS. This confirms that the GPU is the primary scaling factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU begins to cap performance at 1080p, making the choice of settings less impactful on overall frame rate.