Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-12400F compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The i5-12400F posts an average benchmark score of 19221. This places it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-8700K (19210), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1335U (19167), 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (19364), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7773X (18979).

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile relative to all GPUs, and which rival is closest?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti sits in the 83rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 41224 is 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (41441), 0.9% below the AMD Radeon Pro 5300 (41610), 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (41687), and 1.6% below the NVIDIA Tesla M40 (41897).

Q: What is the combo rank of this CPU-GPU pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination of the Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti ranks 455th out of 1795 tested combos in this game. The data is measured, not simulated.

Q: What are the memory characteristics of the RTX 3080 Ti, and how much VRAM does it have?

A: The GPU features 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 912.4 GB/s. Memory clocks run at 1188 MHz, with an effective data rate of 19 Gbps.

Q: What is the CPU's threading configuration and cache layout?

A: The Intel Core i5-12400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It carries 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: How does the CPU perform in single-threaded versus multi-threaded Cinebench tests?

A: In Cinebench R23, the i5-12400F scores 2332 in single-core and 16518 in multi-core. For Cinebench R20, the single-core score is 979 and multi-core is 6937. The Cinebench R15 results show 234 single-core and 1664 multi-core.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti is the dominant component in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator, given the game's heavy reliance on GPU rendering for terrain, weather, and cockpit visuals. The GPU's 12 GB of GDDR6X memory at 912.4 GB/s bandwidth ensures that high-resolution textures and complex scenery load without stutter, which is critical in a simulator where consistent frame delivery matters more than raw peak performance. The 384-bit memory bus provides the throughput needed for the large data sets typical of flight environments.

The GPU's clock behavior is defined by a base of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, with memory clocked at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). These clocks, combined with 10240 shading units and 320 texture mapping units, produce a pixel rate of 186.5 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 532.8 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS indicates strong compute capability, though flight simulation workloads tend to be more memory-bandwidth sensitive than pure compute bound.

The RTX 3080 Ti's overall standing in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41224, places it just below the RTX 3090 (41441) by 0.5%. That marginal gap in synthetic benchmarks translates into the measured FPS data here, where the GPU is consistently the limiting factor at higher settings. In this game, the GPU's VRAM capacity of 12 GB is sufficient for the tested presets, as the measured FPS scales predictably with resolution and quality rather than showing a cliff from memory exhaustion.

The GPU's architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which covers the rendering APIs used by Microsoft Flight Simulator. The 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores are present but not heavily exercised in standard flight simulation workloads, which tend to favor raw rasterization and memory bandwidth. The measured results show that the RTX 3080 Ti delivers playable frame rates even at 4K Ultra (53 FPS), indicating headroom for the most demanding visual settings available in the game.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal balance between visual fidelity and frame rate depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1080p, all four presets exceed 90 FPS, making the choice primarily about visual quality rather than playability. The Ultra preset at 1080p delivers 90.4 FPS, which is only 4.3 FPS lower than High (94.7 FPS) but provides the full visual feature set. For users with 1080p displays, Ultra is the recommended preset, as the frame rate remains comfortably above 60 FPS.

At 1440p, the data shows a clearer trade-off. High preset delivers 79.1 FPS, while Ultra drops to 72.7 FPS. Both are playable, but the 6.4 FPS difference between High and Ultra may not justify the additional visual load for competitive or high-refresh-rate play. Medium at 103.6 FPS offers a significant frame rate advantage over Ultra (72.7 FPS) with only a moderate visual compromise. For 1440p, High is the recommended preset for balanced quality, while Ultra remains viable for those prioritizing visuals over frame rate.

At 4K, the situation becomes tighter. High preset produces 56.6 FPS, which is just below the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay on many displays. Ultra drops further to 53 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less fluid. Medium at 71.8 FPS provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS and is the recommended preset for 4K users who want both quality and smoothness. The data shows that Low at 4K (93.9 FPS) is unnecessary unless the user has a high-refresh-rate 4K display, in which case it would be the only preset to fully utilize such a panel's capabilities.

The overall recommendation is to prioritize High at 1440p or Medium at 4K for the best experience per the measured rows. The gap between High and Ultra narrows as resolution increases, meaning the cost of Ultra in FPS is relatively smaller at 1080p (4.3 FPS drop) than at 4K (3.6 FPS drop from High), but the absolute frame rates at 4K make Medium the safer choice for consistent playability.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS across settings shows a clear progression: Low delivers 164.6 FPS, Medium drops to 130.4 FPS, High falls to 94.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 90.4 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 74.2 FPS, representing a 45.1% reduction in frame rate as visual quality increases. The step from Medium to High is the largest single transition at 35.7 FPS, indicating that High preset introduces substantial rendering overhead.

At 2560x1440, the same four presets produce 133.3 FPS (Low), 103.6 FPS (Medium), 79.1 FPS (High), and 72.7 FPS (Ultra). The gap between Low and Ultra is 60.6 FPS, a 45.5% reduction. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 6.4 FPS, making Ultra a relatively inexpensive upgrade over High in terms of frame rate cost. The Medium preset at 103.6 FPS remains above 100 FPS, which is suitable for high-refresh-rate 1440p displays.

At 3840x2160, the measured FPS values are 93.9 (Low), 71.8 (Medium), 56.6 (High), and 53 (Ultra). The transition from Low to Medium costs 22.1 FPS, while Medium to High costs 15.2 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 3.6 FPS. The incremental cost of Ultra over High shrinks as resolution increases, suggesting that at 4K the GPU is already heavily loaded and the additional visual features of Ultra have diminishing frame rate impact. The total drop from Low to Ultra at 4K is 40.9 FPS, a 43.6% reduction.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset provides the highest frame rates, with 164.6 FPS at 1080p being the single fastest measured result. The Ultra preset at 4K (53 FPS) is the slowest measured result, which is expected given the combined load of high resolution and maximum visual quality. The data shows that the RTX 3080 Ti can handle 1080p Ultra at 90.4 FPS and 1440p Ultra at 72.7 FPS, making both viable for high-refresh-rate gaming, while 4K Ultra at 53 FPS is best suited for 60 Hz displays.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how the system scales from 1080p to 4K across each preset. For the Low preset, frame rates decline from 164.6 FPS at 1080p to 133.3 FPS at 1440p (an 81.0% retention) and then to 93.9 FPS at 4K (a 57.1% retention from 1080p). For Medium, the values are 130.4 FPS at 1080p, 103.6 FPS at 1440p (79.4% retention), and 71.8 FPS at 4K (55.1% retention). High preset shows 94.7 FPS at 1080p, 79.1 FPS at 1440p (83.5% retention), and 56.6 FPS at 4K (59.8% retention). Ultra preset yields 90.4 FPS at 1080p, 72.7 FPS at 1440p (80.4% retention), and 53 FPS at 4K (58.6% retention).

The consistency of retention rates across presets—roughly 79-84% from 1080p to 1440p and 55-60% from 1080p to 4K—indicates that the scaling is primarily resolution-driven rather than settings-driven. The GPU is the limiting component at higher resolutions, as the CPU (Intel Core i5-12400F) has sufficient single-thread performance with its 2332 Cinebench R23 single-core score to keep up with the game's simulation logic. The CPU's 6-core/12-thread configuration with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz provides the necessary headroom for flight simulation's physics and AI computations, which are typically single-threaded.

The drop from 1440p to 4K is steeper than from 1080p to 1440p in absolute terms for all presets. For example, High preset loses 15.6 FPS from 1080p to 1440p (94.7 to 79.1), but loses 22.5 FPS from 1440p to 4K (79.1 to 56.6). This accelerating decline is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios where pixel count increases by 2.25x from 1440p to 4K, versus 1.78x from 1080p to 1440p. The RTX 3080 Ti's memory bandwidth of 912.4 GB/s and pixel rate of 186.5 GPixel/s are the relevant limits here.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the system is partially CPU-limited, as evidenced by the relatively small gap between High (94.7 FPS) and Ultra (90.4 FPS) compared to the larger gap between Low (164.6 FPS) and Medium (130.4 FPS). At 4K, the GPU becomes the clear bottleneck, with all presets showing frame rates that scale almost linearly with the reduction in rendering load. For users seeking to maximize frame rates at 4K, dropping from Ultra to Medium yields a 35.5% improvement (53 to 71.8 FPS), which is a more effective strategy than any CPU-side optimization given this component pairing.