Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 delivers a playable but not exceptional experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with performance that scales predictably across resolutions but ultimately leaves high-fidelity 4K play out of reach. The data shows this combination ranks in the 57th percentile of tested combos, and the primary bottleneck shifts decisively to the GPU as resolution increases, though the CPU’s 6-core/12-thread configuration holds up adequately at lower settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent pattern: as resolution climbs from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, average frame rates drop by roughly 40-45% across all settings presets. At Ultra settings, the transition from 1080p to 4K costs 25 FPS, falling from 62 to 37 average FPS. This steep decline indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 9060 becomes the limiting component at higher resolutions, particularly when the simulation’s heavy draw calls and terrain rendering demand more pixel throughput than the GPU’s 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth can sustain.

The scaling behavior differs notably between Low and Medium presets. At Low settings, the 1080p to 4K drop is 45 FPS (from 111 to 66), representing a 40.5% reduction. Medium settings show a smaller absolute drop of 35 FPS (from 86 to 51), but the percentage loss is similar at 40.7%. This consistency across presets suggests that the RX 9060’s compute resources—1792 shading units and 21.43 TFLOPS FP32—are being fully utilized in a resolution-bound manner, independent of the graphical workload complexity.

However, the 1440p results tell a more nuanced story. At 2560x1440, the gap between Low (89 FPS) and High (52 FPS) is 37 FPS, while at 1080p that same gap is 46 FPS (111 vs 65). The compression of this spread at 1440p indicates that the CPU begins to exert more influence, as the i5-12400F’s single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 909) starts to become a factor when the GPU is not fully saturated. The 4K Ultra result of 37 FPS, which is barely above the 30 FPS minimum for playability, confirms that this combo is not suited for maximum fidelity at the highest resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The comboRankInGame places this configuration at 1712 out of 2996 tested combinations, which positions it in the lower-middle tier of the database. This ranking is somewhat surprising given the individual component scores—the CPU sits at the 73rd percentile among all processors, while the GPU is at the 59th percentile—but the data indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator’s unique demands penalize this pairing more than typical games.

The CPU’s nearest rivals provide context for its performance ceiling. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS matches the i5-12400F almost exactly (19047 vs 19039 avg score, 0% delta), while the Intel Core i5-1335U is marginally behind at 18982 (0.3% slower). These comparisons suggest that the i5-12400F’s 4.40 GHz boost clock and 18 MB L3 cache are competitive, but the 6-core configuration lacks the headroom that higher-core-count processors bring to flight simulation’s complex physics and AI calculations.

The GPU’s nearest rival data is more revealing. The RX 9060’s average benchmark score of 16014 is only 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti’s 16129, yet the measured in-game FPS at 1080p Ultra (62) suggests this delta translates into meaningful frame rate differences in practice. The AMD Radeon RX 7700, which scores 15852 (1% lower), is the closest AMD competitor, indicating that the RX 9060 is positioned at the upper edge of mid-range GPUs. The ranking shortfall relative to component percentiles likely stems from the game’s reliance on draw call efficiency and VRAM management, where the 8 GB frame buffer becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The optimal settings preset for this combo depends heavily on the target resolution, but the data strongly favors Medium settings as the best balance of visual quality and performance. At 1920x1080, Medium delivers 86 FPS average with a minimum of 73 FPS, providing a smooth experience that clears the 60 FPS threshold with substantial headroom. High settings at 1080p (65 FPS) are also viable, but the 21 FPS drop from Medium to High suggests diminishing returns for the visual uplift.

At 2560x1440, Medium becomes the recommended choice, yielding 69 FPS average with a 59 FPS minimum. This is the only 1440p preset that remains consistently above 60 FPS, making it the clear winner for competitive or smooth play. High settings at 1440p (52 FPS) are playable but dip below the ideal threshold, while Ultra (50 FPS) pushes the system to its limits with only marginal visual gains over High.

For 3840x2160, the recommendation is more constrained. Medium settings produce 51 FPS average with a 44 FPS minimum, which is the only 4K preset that maintains playability without severe stutter. Low settings (66 FPS) are technically smoother but sacrifice too much visual fidelity for a flight simulator, where terrain and instrument readability matter. Ultra at 4K (37 FPS) should be avoided entirely, as the frame rate falls into territory where the simulation’s complex camera movements become unpleasant. The data indicates that Medium at 4K is the practical ceiling for this hardware, while Low settings serve as a fallback for users who prioritize frame rate over immersion.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings range shows a clear hierarchy. Low settings achieve 111 FPS average, which represents the absolute ceiling of this combo’s performance. Medium settings drop to 86 FPS (73 FPS minimum, 99 FPS maximum), and High settings reach 65 FPS. Ultra settings produce 62 FPS, which is only 3 FPS below High—a surprisingly small gap that suggests the Ultra preset’s additional effects are not heavily taxing the GPU at this resolution. The 49 FPS spread between Low and Ultra demonstrates the RX 9060’s capability at 1080p, but also shows that the i5-12400F’s 6 cores (12 threads) can feed the GPU adequately only up to a point.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low settings yield 89 FPS, Medium delivers 69 FPS (59 FPS minimum, 80 FPS maximum), High produces 52 FPS, and Ultra falls to 50 FPS. The compression between High and Ultra (2 FPS difference) versus the 17 FPS gap between Low and Medium indicates that the GPU’s shading units are becoming the primary constraint, with the 4K results (37-66 FPS range) confirming this trend. The Medium preset’s 59 FPS minimum is particularly noteworthy, as it represents the lowest 1% frame rate that still avoids visible stutter in this data set.

The 4K results are the most revealing. Low settings achieve 66 FPS, which is surprisingly high for a mid-range GPU at 4K, but this comes at the cost of reduced terrain detail and object density. Medium settings drop to 51 FPS (44 FPS minimum, 59 FPS maximum), High falls to 39 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 37 FPS. The 29 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is nearly identical to the 30 FPS difference at 1440p, but the absolute values are much lower, confirming that the RX 9060’s 128-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for high-fidelity 4K rendering in this title.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings?

A: No. The measured data shows 37 FPS average at 3840x2160 Ultra, which is below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth play. Even Medium settings at 4K (51 FPS) are marginal, with a 44 FPS minimum that may cause occasional hitches during complex scenery loads.

Q: What is the best resolution for this hardware?

A: 1920x1080 at Medium settings provides the best balance, with 86 FPS average and 73 FPS minimum. This resolution takes advantage of the i5-12400F’s single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 909) while keeping the GPU’s workload manageable.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to its nearest GPU rival in this game?

A: The RX 9060’s average benchmark score (16014) is 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129), but the in-game FPS at 1080p Ultra (62) suggests the gap is consistent with this small benchmark delta. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852, 1% lower) is the closest AMD alternative.

Q: Is the i5-12400F a bottleneck for the RX 9060 in this game?

A: The data indicates the CPU becomes a minor factor at 1080p Low settings, where 111 FPS approaches the limit of what the 6-core/12-thread configuration can feed. However, at higher resolutions and settings, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are the primary limiting factors, as evidenced by the steep FPS drops from 1080p to 4K across all presets.

Q: What settings preset should I use for a 60+ FPS experience?

A: At 1080p, Medium (86 FPS) and High (65 FPS) both exceed 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Medium (69 FPS) clears this threshold. At 4K, no preset achieves 60 FPS, with Low (66 FPS) being the only option above 60 FPS but at significant visual cost.

Q: Does the 8 GB VRAM limit performance at 4K?

A: The data suggests yes. The 4K High (39 FPS) and Ultra (37 FPS) results are nearly identical, indicating that the GPU hits a memory or bandwidth ceiling that prevents additional settings from improving visual quality without further FPS loss. The 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is likely insufficient for the texture streaming demands of 4K flight simulation.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F plays a supporting role in this configuration, with its 6 cores and 12 threads providing sufficient processing power for Microsoft Flight Simulator’s single-thread-heavy workload. The base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz are critical for this game, which relies heavily on draw call submission and terrain generation that favor high single-thread performance. The 3dmark_single_thread score of 909 and the 3dmark_2_threads score of 1699 both indicate that the CPU can maintain high clock speeds under load, which translates into consistent frame delivery in CPU-bound scenarios.

The cache hierarchy—80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3—is adequate for the game’s asset streaming, but the lack of additional cache (no vCache3d) means that complex airport environments with many objects can cause micro-stutters. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12380 and single-core score of 1680 place this CPU in a competitive position against its nearest rivals, with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS matching its performance (0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-1335U trailing by 0.3%.

In practice, the CPU’s role becomes more pronounced at lower resolutions. At 1080p Low (111 FPS), the CPU is likely the primary driver, as the GPU has ample headroom to render the simplified scene. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 5895 and the max_threads score of 5912 show that the CPU’s multithreaded performance is balanced, but the game’s engine does not effectively utilize all 12 threads, as evidenced by the diminishing returns from 8 threads (4779) to 16 threads (5895). This means that the i5-12400F’s 6 physical cores are sufficient, but the 4.40 GHz boost clock is the key differentiator for maintaining 60+ FPS in less demanding scenarios.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in most configurations, but it does cap the maximum achievable FPS. The 111 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low, combined with the 89 FPS at 1440p Low, suggests that the CPU can push the GPU to moderate frame rates but cannot sustain the extreme FPS figures that higher-core-count CPUs might achieve. For users seeking higher frame rates at low settings, a CPU with more cores or higher single-thread performance would be necessary, but for balanced settings at 1080p or 1440p Medium, the i5-12400F provides adequate performance without holding back the RX 9060.