Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does this CPU+GPU combo rank in Microsoft Flight Simulator compared to other tested combinations?

A: This combo ranks 70th out of 3,714 tested combinations, placing it in the top 2% of all systems evaluated for this game.

Q: What is the average FPS at 4K Ultra settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the system delivers an average of 84 FPS, making it playable at maximum quality on a 4K display.

Q: How much performance difference exists between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 184 on Low to 142 on Ultra, representing a 42 FPS difference (about 23% lower performance at Ultra compared to Low).

Q: What is the GPU's memory configuration and how does it affect this game?

A: The RTX 5090 D features 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. This large memory pool and high bandwidth allow the GPU to handle Flight Simulator's extensive texture streaming without bottlenecking.

Q: What are the CPU's core and thread counts?

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, based on the Alder Lake architecture.

Q: Does the system maintain smooth frame rates at 1440p Medium settings?

A: Yes, at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 157, with a minimum of 133 and maximum of 180, indicating consistently high performance with no severe frame drops.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The GPU contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, representing a transistor density of 122.9M per mm². These specifications place the card at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 77,712.

The GPU's memory subsystem is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator. With 32 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, the card provides 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. Flight Simulator is known for loading vast terrain and scenery data, and this memory configuration ensures that texture data can be streamed rapidly. The 1,636.8 GTexel/s texture rate and 423.6 GPixel/s pixel rate further support the game's rendering demands. The 104.8 TFLOPS FP32 compute performance provides ample headroom for the simulation's physics and rendering calculations.

The GPU's clock speeds are 2017 MHz base and 2407 MHz boost. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which enables the latest rendering features that Flight Simulator can utilize. With 21,760 shading units, 680 TMUs, 176 ROPs, 170 RT cores, and 680 tensor cores, the GPU has substantial resources for both traditional rasterization and ray-traced effects that the game may employ.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's capability scales well with resolution. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 184 FPS average, while at 4K Ultra settings it maintains 84 FPS. The GPU clearly has enough power to drive even the most demanding configurations of this simulation title.

Resolution Scaling

Analyzing the FPS data across resolutions reveals how the system scales. At Ultra settings, the average FPS drops from 142 at 1080p to 114 at 1440p, then to 84 at 4K. This represents a 40.8% reduction from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the progression is 149 FPS at 1080p, 120 FPS at 1440p, and 88 FPS at 4K, a 40.9% reduction. At Medium settings, the averages are 168, 157, and 118 FPS respectively, showing a 29.8% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Low settings, the values are 184, 172, and 151 FPS, a 17.9% reduction.

The scaling pattern indicates that at Low settings, the system is less resolution-sensitive, suggesting the CPU may be the limiting factor at lower graphical loads. The frame rate only decreases by 33 FPS from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, whereas at Ultra settings the drop is 58 FPS. This suggests that as graphical settings increase, the GPU becomes more of a bottleneck, while at lower settings the CPU's capability constrains maximum performance.

The 4K results show the GPU is still delivering high frame rates even at maximum settings. The difference between 1440p and 4K at Ultra is 30 FPS (114 to 84), which is a notable reduction but still maintains smooth gameplay. The data implies that this combination is well-balanced for 1440p and 4K gaming, with the GPU handling the increased pixel count effectively across all settings presets.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of Intel Core i5-12400F and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D achieves a rank of 70 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This percentile placement indicates that the system outperforms approximately 98% of all tested configurations for this game.

The high rank is noteworthy given the CPU's mid-range positioning. The i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19,039 and sits at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with a score of 19,047 (0% delta), the Intel Core 3 201E at 19,056 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18,982 (0.3% delta), and the AMD EPYC 7773X at 18,979 (0.3% delta). The CPU's performance is essentially tied with these competitors in synthetic benchmarks.

The GPU, meanwhile, stands at the 92nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 77,712. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT at 76,904 (1.1% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT at 78,940 (-1.6% delta), the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB at 79,396 (-2.1% delta), and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB at 79,605 (-2.4% delta).

The combination of a mid-range CPU with a top-tier GPU yields a system that ranks exceptionally well in this specific game. This suggests that Flight Simulator benefits significantly from GPU horsepower, and the CPU does not bottleneck the GPU's performance in this title. The rank of 70 indicates that only a small number of combinations deliver higher frame rates in this game.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F features 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Alder Lake-S architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. The processor has a 65W TDP and operates at 2.50 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clocks. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3 cache.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates solid multi-threaded performance. The Cinebench R23 multicore score is 12,380, while the single-core score is 1,680. Geekbench results show 9,472 multicore and 1,964 single-core. The 3DMark tests indicate scaling from 909 single-thread to 5,912 max threads, showing reasonable scaling across the 12 threads.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is critical for simulation logic, physics calculations, and AI processing. The game's flight model and weather systems are CPU-intensive. The 6-core/12-thread configuration with a 4.40 GHz boost clock provides adequate processing power for these tasks. The PassMark physics score of 1,202 and integer math score of 59,995 indicate the CPU can handle complex calculations.

The measured FPS data reveals an interesting pattern. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 184 FPS, but at 4K Low settings it still maintains 151 FPS. The relatively small drop at Low settings (33 FPS) suggests the CPU is able to keep up with the GPU even at lower resolutions. However, at Ultra settings, the drop from 1080p to 4K is larger (58 FPS), indicating the GPU becomes more stressed at higher graphical loads.

The CPU's performance at 1080p Low (184 FPS) may represent a ceiling imposed by the processor. This is supported by the 3DMark single-thread score of 909, which is moderate compared to higher-end CPUs. The 18 MB L3 cache helps with game data access patterns, but the dual-channel memory support and lack of integrated graphics do not directly impact gaming performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the system delivers consistently high frame rates across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 184 FPS. Medium settings yield 168 FPS average with a minimum of 143 and maximum of 194. High settings achieve 149 FPS average, and Ultra settings maintain 142 FPS average.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance remains strong. Low settings average 172 FPS. Medium settings produce 157 FPS average with a range of 133 to 180 FPS. High settings deliver 120 FPS average, and Ultra settings maintain 114 FPS average.

At 3840x2160, the system still provides excellent frame rates. Low settings achieve 151 FPS average. Medium settings yield 118 FPS average with a minimum of 100 and maximum of 135. High settings produce 88 FPS average, and Ultra settings maintain 84 FPS average.

The data reveals that the system never drops below 84 FPS average in any tested configuration. Even at the most demanding settings (4K Ultra), the frame rate remains above 60 FPS, providing a smooth experience. The minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings show that at 1080p the minimum is 143, at 1440p it is 133, and at 4K it is 100, all remaining comfortably above playable thresholds.

The scaling between settings at each resolution shows diminishing returns as settings increase. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 42 FPS (184 to 142). At 1440p, the difference is 58 FPS (172 to 114). At 4K, the difference is 67 FPS (151 to 84). This indicates that higher resolutions amplify the performance impact of graphical settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the target resolution and desired frame rate.

For 4K displays, Medium settings provide the best balance of visual quality and performance. The average of 118 FPS with a minimum of 100 FPS ensures consistently smooth gameplay with no frame drops below the 100 FPS threshold. High settings at 4K deliver 88 FPS average, which is still excellent for a flight simulator, but the jump to Ultra reduces performance to 84 FPS, offering only marginal visual improvements over High.

At 1440p, High settings offer an excellent experience with 120 FPS average. For players seeking maximum visual fidelity, Ultra settings at 114 FPS are equally viable, as the difference between High and Ultra is only 6 FPS. Medium settings at 157 FPS provide headroom for more demanding scenarios, such as dense city areas or complex weather conditions.

For 1080p, all settings deliver above 140 FPS average. Ultra settings at 142 FPS provide the best visual experience while maintaining high frame rates. The 42 FPS gap between Ultra and Low (184 FPS) suggests that even at lower settings, the system has substantial performance headroom, making the Ultra preset the clear choice for 1080p gaming.

The data suggests that Medium settings at 4K provide the most balanced experience, offering a 118 FPS average with a recorded minimum of 100 FPS. This configuration ensures that even in the most demanding scenes, frame rates remain high. The system's 32 GB of VRAM ensures that even at Ultra settings, memory capacity is not a limiting factor, making the choice purely about frame rate preferences rather than technical constraints.