Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator reveals a steep, predictable performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo of Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers 104.4 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 83.9 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls further to 62.8 FPS. That is a 39.8% reduction from 1080p to 4K at the lowest preset, which is a substantial hit but still leaves the game playable.

The pattern shifts when looking at higher settings. At Ultra, the 1080p result is 61 FPS, 1440p Ultra is 48.1 FPS, and 4K Ultra bottoms out at 35.7 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 41.5%, very close to the Low-preset drop. This consistency across presets suggests the scaling is primarily resolution-driven rather than settings-driven. The GPU is the dominant constraint as pixel count rises, a conclusion reinforced by the fact that the 1080p Low score of 104.4 FPS is nearly double the 4K Ultra score.

What is curious is the relationship between Medium and High presets. At 1080p, Medium yields 84.7 FPS while High drops to 59.4 FPS — a 29.9% gap. At 4K, the same two presets produce 45.4 and 35.7 FPS respectively, a 21.4% gap. The narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates that the CPU's ability to feed frames becomes less relevant when the GPU is overwhelmed by pixel throughput. The data implies that in this flight simulator, 1080p is where the processor still has headroom, but 4K shifts the bottleneck firmly to the Radeon RX 6650 XT.

Another notable observation: 4K High and 4K Ultra produce identical average FPS at 35.7. This is a red flag for a GPU-limited scenario — the extra shading and effects in Ultra are essentially free because the renderer is already saturating the graphics card's throughput. The 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus on this GPU are likely contributors to this ceiling, as flight simulators stream large terrain and scenery datasets that pressure memory bandwidth.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific pairing of Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT achieves a combo rank of 1145 out of 1795 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the lower-middle tier of the database, which is a meaningful signal given the hardware's individual standings. The CPU sits at the 77th percentile against all processors, while the GPU is at the 72nd percentile against all graphics cards. Yet when combined for this game, the pair underperforms relative to those individual percentiles, suggesting a suboptimal match.

The CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are telling. The Intel Core i7-8700K scores 19210, a negligible 0.1% delta from the i5-12400F's 19221 average. The AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS is 0.7% faster, and the AMD EPYC 7773X is 1.3% slower. None of these deltas exceed 1.3%, meaning the i5-12400F is essentially in a dead heat with several very different processor designs — from an older desktop flagship to a mobile APU and a server chip. This broad parity hints that single-thread performance, not core count, drives the CPU's contribution to flight sim frame rates.

For the GPU, the RX 6650 XT's nearest rivals cluster even tighter. The Radeon RX 6800M matches it at 0% delta, the RX 470 is 0.1% slower, the Intel Arc A370M is 0.5% faster, and the RX Vega M GH is 0.6% faster. These are wildly different products — a mobile flagship, a 2016 budget card, and an integrated solution — yet they all land within 0.6% of each other in aggregate GPU benchmarks. The RX 6650 XT's 72nd percentile ranking is respectable, but the combo rank of 1145/1795 shows that raw component strength does not translate directly into flight sim performance. The game's engine appears to reward specific architectural traits that this pairing only partially satisfies.

FAQ

Q: Does the RX 6650 XT handle 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: At 4K Low, the card averages 62.8 FPS, which is playable. At 4K Medium it drops to 45.4 FPS, and at 4K High or Ultra it falls to 35.7 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is identical to 4K High, indicating a hard GPU ceiling around 35.7 FPS at that resolution.

Q: How does the i5-12400F compare to its closest CPU rivals?

A: The i5-12400F's average benchmark score is 19221, within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-8700K (19210) and 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-1335U (19167). It is 0.7% slower than the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS and 1.3% faster than the AMD EPYC 7773X.

Q: What is the best preset for 1440p gaming with this combo?

A: At 1440p, Low delivers 83.9 FPS, Medium 62.4 FPS, High 47.1 FPS, and Ultra 48.1 FPS. The Ultra preset actually outperforms High by 1 FPS, so if visual fidelity matters, Ultra is the better choice over High at this resolution.

Q: Is there a performance penalty for using High instead of Medium?

A: Yes, and it is substantial. At 1080p, High (59.4 FPS) is 29.9% slower than Medium (84.7 FPS). At 1440p, the gap narrows to 24.5% (47.1 vs 62.4), and at 4K it shrinks to 21.4% (35.7 vs 45.4). The penalty decreases as resolution increases.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance at any resolution?

A: The data suggests CPU limitation is minimal at 4K, where High and Ultra both cap at 35.7 FPS, pointing to GPU saturation. At 1080p Low, the 104.4 FPS result shows the processor can feed frames well above 60 FPS, but the GPU becomes the bottleneck as settings and resolution increase.

Q: How much VRAM does this GPU have, and does it matter?

A: The RX 6650 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 280.3 GB/s bandwidth. The identical 4K High and Ultra scores of 35.7 FPS suggest that memory bandwidth or capacity may be constraining performance at extreme settings, though the synthetic benchmarks show the GPU at the 72nd percentile overall.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers four resolutions and four settings presets, producing 16 distinct average FPS values. At 3840x2160, the results are 35.7 FPS for High, 62.8 for Low, 45.4 for Medium, and 35.7 for Ultra. The 4K Low result is notably strong — it exceeds 60 FPS, which is uncommon for a mid-range GPU at this resolution in a demanding flight sim. However, the 4K High and Ultra parity at 35.7 FPS is a warning that the card cannot differentiate between these two presets under pixel load.

At 2560x1440, the spread widens. Low produces 83.9 FPS, Medium 62.4, High 47.1, and Ultra 48.1. The Ultra-over-High inversion (48.1 vs 47.1) is a minor anomaly worth noting — it could indicate driver-level optimizations or scene variance, but the 1 FPS difference is within measurement noise. The 1440p Medium result of 62.4 FPS is the sweet spot for smooth gameplay, comfortably above 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the full range of the combo is visible. Low hits 104.4 FPS, Medium 84.7, High 59.4, and Ultra 61. The High preset dips below 60 FPS, while Ultra recovers to 61 — again showing that preset names do not always map linearly to performance. The 1080p Low result of 104.4 FPS is the highest measured value across all configurations, demonstrating that the CPU can push well past 100 FPS when the GPU is lightly loaded.

Comparing settings across resolutions, Low shows the smallest absolute drop from 1080p to 4K (104.4 to 62.8, a 39.8% decline), while High shows a similar relative decline (59.4 to 35.7, a 39.9% drop). This uniformity suggests the scaling factor is resolution itself, not the quality preset. The combo's ranking at 1145 out of 1795 combos reflects this mid-tier performance — capable but not exceptional.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC with 11,060 million transistors. Its clock speeds are aggressive for the segment: a base of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost of 2635 MHz. The memory subsystem is the most likely constraint in flight sim — 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivers 280.3 GB/s, which is adequate but not generous for a game that streams high-resolution terrain.

The compute resources are substantial: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray accelerators. Pixel rate is 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 337.3 GTexel/s, with FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS. These specifications place the card at the 72nd percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29024. Its closest rival, the Radeon RX 6800M, matches exactly at 29011 with a 0% delta, while the RX 470 is 0.1% slower and the Intel Arc A370M is 0.5% faster.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role becomes clear when examining the 4K results. The fact that High and Ultra both yield 35.7 FPS suggests the card is hitting a throughput wall — likely memory bandwidth or fill-rate limited — rather than a compute limit. The 128-bit bus is narrow for a card that pushes 10.79 TFLOPS, and flight sims are notorious for large texture fetches. The 8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K with Ultra settings, the combination of high pixel count and streaming geometry likely exceeds comfortable memory headroom.

The GPU's end-of-life production status also matters for long-term expectations. RDNA 2.0 is a mature architecture, and the 12 Ultimate DirectX support (12_2) ensures feature compatibility, but the 72nd percentile ranking means there are many faster options. The measured data shows this card is a 1080p champion — 104.4 FPS at Low and 84.7 at Medium — but it struggles to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p High and cannot break 40 FPS at 4K Ultra.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². Its base clock is 2.50 GHz and boost clock is 4.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and its PCIe Gen 5 interface provides 20 lanes from the CPU.

Synthetic benchmarks paint a picture of a strong mid-range chip. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 16518 and single-core is 2332. Geekbench shows 9138 multicore and 2221 single-core. The Passmark multithread score is 19433 with a single-thread score of 3481. The 3DMark results are particularly relevant for gaming: 909 single-thread, 1699 for 2 threads, 3067 for 4 threads, 4779 for 8 threads, and 5912 for max threads. The scaling from 2 to 4 to 8 threads is strong, but the jump from 8 to max threads is only 19.3%, indicating diminishing returns beyond 8 threads in these workloads.

The CPU ranks at the 77th percentile against all processors, with an average benchmark score of 19221. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-8700K, scores 19210 — a 0.1% difference that is effectively a tie. This is notable because the i7-8700K is a 2017 flagship with higher clocks, while the i5-12400F uses newer architecture. The parity suggests that for gaming, the i5-12400F's 4.40 GHz boost and efficient Alder Lake cores are sufficient to match an older, higher-clocked design.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is most visible at 1080p Low, where the combo achieves 104.4 FPS. This high frame rate indicates the processor can feed the GPU well beyond 60 FPS when the graphics load is light. However, the 3DMark single-thread score of 909 and the fact that the CPU's nearest rivals all cluster within 1.3% suggests that this game is not heavily multi-threaded — the 6-core/12-thread configuration is sufficient, but the single-core performance is what matters. The 18 MB L3 cache is also relevant, as flight sims load large scenery databases that benefit from on-die caching.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data supports a clear recommendation hierarchy based on resolution target. For 1080p, the Medium preset at 84.7 FPS offers the best balance — it is 29.9% faster than High (59.4 FPS) while still providing a substantial visual upgrade over Low (104.4 FPS). The Ultra preset at 61 FPS is only 2.7% faster than High, making it a marginal upgrade that is not worth the potential stability risk.

For 1440p, Medium at 62.4 FPS is the only preset that reliably exceeds 60 FPS. Low achieves 83.9 FPS but sacrifices visual fidelity, while High (47.1) and Ultra (48.1) both fall below 50 FPS. The Ultra preset's slight advantage over High is a quirk of the data — it suggests that the game's Ultra settings do not impose an additional GPU cost at this resolution, possibly because the scene is already geometry-bound. Choosing Ultra over High is reasonable here since there is no measured penalty.

For 4K, the situation is more constrained. Low at 62.8 FPS is the only playable option above 60 FPS, while Medium at 45.4 FPS is acceptable for slower-paced flight sim play. High and Ultra both cap at 35.7 FPS, which is borderline for a game that requires precise control. The identical scores indicate that High is a wasted choice — if 35.7 FPS is acceptable, Ultra is strictly better at no additional cost.

The overall recommendation is to prioritize Medium settings at any resolution, as it offers the most consistent frame rates relative to the next tier up. The drop from Medium to High costs 29.9% at 1080p, 24.5% at 1440p, and 21.4% at 4K — a significant penalty for incremental visual gains. The data also suggests that this combo is best paired with a 1080p or 1440p monitor, as the 4K results are limited by the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus.