Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core i5-12400F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

This combo lands deep in the lower quartile of tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, ranking 3181st out of 3714 total combos. The pairing of a 6-core Alder Lake CPU with a 6 GB Turing-era GPU produces playable but constrained results, with the data showing a system that is consistently GPU-limited at higher resolutions and settings, yet surprisingly capable at 1080p Low where it nearly doubles its 4K Ultra frame rate.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs, which is classic behavior for a GPU-bound system. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 77 FPS average. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 62 FPS, a 19.5% reduction, and 4K Low falls to 46 FPS, another 25.8% step down. This scaling pattern shows that pixel count is the primary stressor, not CPU thread utilization.

The gap between 1080p and 4K widens dramatically at higher settings. At High settings, 1080p delivers 45 FPS, 1440p drops to 37 FPS (a 17.8% loss), and 4K collapses to 27 FPS (a 40% loss from 1440p). The Ultra preset tells an even harsher story: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. The difference between 1080p Ultra (43 FPS) and 4K Ultra (26 FPS) is a 39.5% reduction, indicating that the GTX 1660 Ti's 192-bit memory bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are simply overwhelmed by 8.3 million pixels.

What does this say about the limiting component? The CPU's 12 threads and 18 MB of L3 cache are clearly not the bottleneck here. The i5-12400F scores 12,380 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,680 in single-core, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs. If the CPU were the constraint, frame rates would not scale so linearly with resolution. Instead, the data points squarely at the GPU: the 1660 Ti, with a 41st percentile ranking among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 7,723, is the ceiling. The fact that 1080p Low hits 77 FPS while 4K Low only reaches 46 FPS — a 40.3% drop — while the CPU workload stays nearly constant, confirms a pure fill-rate and memory-bandwidth limitation.

Interestingly, the step from Medium to High at 1080p costs only 15 FPS (60 to 45 FPS), while the step from Low to Medium costs 17 FPS (77 to 60 FPS). This non-linear scaling suggests that the Medium preset introduces enough additional shading and texture work to saturate the GPU's 1,536 shading units, while High adds less incremental pressure. At 4K, the Medium-to-High drop is 9 FPS (36 to 27 FPS), and Low-to-Medium drops 10 FPS (46 to 36 FPS), showing a similar pattern but with absolute numbers compressed by the resolution wall.

GPU Role

The GTX 1660 Ti operates with a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, paired with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. That memory configuration yields 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is the single most relevant spec for Microsoft Flight Simulator's streaming-heavy workload. The game constantly loads terrain and photogrammetry data, and the 6 GB frame buffer becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings.

The data supports this analysis. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 26 FPS, which is effectively unplayable. The 6 GB capacity is likely being exhausted, forcing texture streaming from system memory. The GPU's 48 ROPs and 84.96 GPixel/s pixel rate are also modest by modern standards, and the 5.437 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is adequate for 1080p but insufficient for 4K. The GPU's PassMark G3D score of 12,871 places it just 2.3% above the Intel Arc A310 (7,550 score) and 0.7% above the AMD Radeon 540 (7,673 score), which underscores how dated this chip is.

The Vega-era rival comparison is telling: the 1660 Ti's nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580 score, 1.9% slower) and the Radeon R7 250 (7,557 score, 2.2% slower). These are entry-level workstation and legacy cards, not modern gaming GPUs. The 1660 Ti's 41st percentile ranking among all GPUs means it sits below the median, and in a simulation title like this — which is known for heavy draw calls and extensive scenery — that mid-pack position translates directly to the measured FPS deficits.

The GPU's DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility are present, but the Turing architecture lacks dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores. Microsoft Flight Simulator does not require RTX features for its standard rendering path, but the absence of those hardware units means the GPU cannot offload any AI or RT work, keeping all shading on the 1,536 CUDA cores. The 12 nm process node from TSMC, with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, results in a 120 W TDP — modest power draw, but the performance per watt is no longer competitive.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for playability. At 1080p, Low produces 77 FPS, which is smooth for a flight simulator where camera pans and ground detail streaming benefit from headroom. Medium delivers 60 FPS with 51 FPS minimums and 69 FPS maximums, which is the sweet spot for visual fidelity without sacrificing smoothness. High drops to 45 FPS, and Ultra to 43 FPS — both playable but noticeably less fluid.

At 1440p, the picture changes. Low hits 62 FPS, which is still acceptable, but Medium falls to 49 FPS with 41 FPS minimums. High sits at 37 FPS, and Ultra at 35 FPS. For a flight sim, where the camera often moves slowly across scenery, 35–37 FPS can be tolerated, but the 41 FPS minimum on Medium suggests occasional stutter during dense scenery loads. The recommendation here is Medium if you want a stable experience; 4K is not viable beyond Low.

At 4K, the data is unambiguous. Low averages 46 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches playability. Medium drops to 36 FPS with 30 FPS minimums — that minimum is below the threshold for comfortable flight. High (27 FPS) and Ultra (26 FPS) are slideshows. The 4K Medium minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 41 FPS shows a 11 FPS variance, indicating inconsistent frame pacing during terrain streaming.

The optimal preset per the measured rows is 1080p Medium. It delivers 60 FPS average, which matches standard monitor refresh rates, with a 51 FPS minimum that keeps drops noticeable but tolerable. The step to High only loses 15 FPS but gains marginal visual improvements in a game that is already heavily dependent on shader complexity. If a user prioritizes frame rate above all, 1080p Low at 77 FPS leaves 23 FPS of headroom over Medium, which could be useful for recording or streaming. At 1440p, Medium (49 FPS) is the highest playable preset, and at 4K, Low (46 FPS) is the only option that stays above 30 FPS minimums — though the data does not provide a 4K Low minimum value.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3181 out of 3714 total tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 14.3% of all systems. This is a poor result for a game that rewards both CPU single-thread performance and GPU rasterization power. The i5-12400F is a strong CPU — its 12,380 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 1680 single-core score show it can feed any GPU up to a high-end tier — but the 1660 Ti holds the system back.

The CPU's nearest rivals are all close in average score, but none of them rescue this pairing. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19,047 (0% delta), the Intel Core 3 201E scores 19,056 (-0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18,982 (0.3% delta). These are mobile and low-power chips, meaning the i5-12400F is actually out-performing its peers in raw compute — the bottleneck is entirely the GPU. The GPU's nearest rivals are all far weaker in absolute terms: the Radeon 540 (7,673 score), Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), Radeon R7 250 (7,557), and Arc A310 (7,550). The 1660 Ti beats these by 0.7% to 2.3%, which means it is barely faster than entry-level cards that are not designed for 4K gaming.

The ranking of 3181st out of 3714 means there are 533 combos that perform worse, but the vast majority of tested systems outperform this pairing. The 73rd percentile CPU ranking versus the 41st percentile GPU ranking creates a mismatch: the CPU is capable of driving 100+ FPS in most titles, but the GPU caps this game at 77 FPS maximum (1080p Low). In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the data shows that even at 1080p Low, the 77 FPS average is far below what the CPU could theoretically deliver, confirming that the GTX 1660 Ti is the limiting factor in every measured configuration.

FAQ

Q: Is this combo playable at 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Only at Low settings, where it averages 46 FPS. Medium drops to 36 FPS with 30 FPS minimums, High falls to 27 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 26 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution to use with this hardware?

A: 1920x1080 is the only resolution that provides consistently playable frame rates across all presets. At 1440p, only Low (62 FPS) and Medium (49 FPS) are viable, while 4K is limited to Low.

Q: How does the GTX 1660 Ti compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The 1660 Ti's average benchmark score of 7,723 places it 0.7% above the AMD Radeon 540 (7,673), 1.9% above the Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), 2.2% above the Radeon R7 250 (7,557), and 2.3% above the Intel Arc A310 (7,550).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this pairing?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The i5-12400F ranks in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the GTX 1660 Ti ranks in the 41st percentile. The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K shows consistent drops regardless of CPU workload, indicating a GPU limitation.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p Ultra?

A: The measured average is 43 FPS, with no minimum or maximum values recorded. This is playable but below the 60 FPS threshold that Medium achieves.

Q: Does the 6 GB VRAM cause problems at higher settings?

A: The data suggests yes. At 4K Ultra (26 FPS) and 4K High (27 FPS), the frame rates collapse to near-unplayable levels, consistent with the 6 GB frame buffer being exhausted by high-resolution textures.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 77 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: 60 FPS average, 51 FPS minimum, 69 FPS maximum
• High: 45 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: 43 FPS average (no min/max recorded)

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 62 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: 49 FPS average, 41 FPS minimum, 56 FPS maximum
• High: 37 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: 35 FPS average (no min/max recorded)

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 46 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Medium: 36 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum, 41 FPS maximum
• High: 27 FPS average (no min/max recorded)
• Ultra: 26 FPS average (no min/max recorded)

The data shows a systematic 15–19% performance drop when moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings, and a further 25–40% drop from 1440p to 4K. The Medium preset is the only one that records minimum and maximum values across all resolutions, providing the most complete picture of frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the 51–69 FPS range indicates a stable 18 FPS spread; at 1440p Medium, the 41–56 FPS range widens slightly; and at 4K Medium, the 30–41 FPS range shows a tighter but lower overall band. This suggests that as resolution increases, the frame time variance compresses because the GPU is consistently saturated rather than intermittently bottlenecked.