Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of the Intel Core i5-12600KF with the AMD Radeon RX 580 in Microsoft Flight Simulator produces a dataset that is immediately revealing about the nature of this specific workload. The measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings tell a story of a system that is consistently bound by its graphics processor, yet the CPU’s architecture provides a foundation that prevents the experience from collapsing entirely at lower settings. The data indicates a combination that struggles to deliver smooth performance at high resolutions but can approach playability when both resolution and visual fidelity are scaled back. This analysis explores the measured results, focusing on how the workload shifts between the processor and the graphics card.

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

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario. At the "Low" preset, the average FPS drops from 54 at 1920x1080 to 43 at 2560x1440, and finally to 32 at 3840x2160. This represents a 40.7% reduction in performance when moving from 1080p to 4K. This significant scaling with resolution is the primary evidence that the AMD Radeon RX 580 is the limiting factor in this configuration.

The pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For instance, at "Medium" settings, the average FPS falls from 42 at 1080p to 34 at 1440p (a 19% drop) and then to 25 at 4K (a further 26.5% drop). Similarly, at "High" settings, the averages are 31, 25, and 19 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively. This monotonic decrease in performance directly correlates with the increase in pixel count, which places a proportionally higher load on the GPU's shading units, texture mapping units, and raster operations pipelines. The data strongly suggests that the GPU is working at its limits, and the CPU has enough headroom to feed it frames at these resolutions.

However, the scaling is not perfectly linear, which offers a subtle insight into the CPU's role. The jump from 1080p to 1440p at "Low" settings is a 20.4% drop in FPS, while the jump from 1440p to 4K is a 25.6% drop. This slight acceleration in the performance penalty at higher resolutions suggests that while the GPU is the primary bottleneck, the CPU's frame generation capabilities are still a secondary factor. If the CPU were completely idle, the FPS drop would likely be even more steep and consistent. The fact that the drop is slightly steeper at higher resolutions indicates the CPU is still working to keep up, but its performance is not the main constraint. The data implies that the Radeon RX 580's compute throughput is the wall that this system hits, and the i5-12600KF is just waiting for more work to be sent its way.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Radeon RX 580 is a 2017-era graphics card, and its specifications are directly reflected in the measured performance. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This is a substantial amount of VRAM for its time, but Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for its high-resolution textures and complex scenery. At 4K with "Ultra" settings, the GPU manages an average of 18 FPS, which is likely a scenario where the GPU's compute units are saturated, and the 6.175 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply insufficient for the workload.

The GPU's clock speeds are also relevant. The base clock of 1257 MHz and boost clock of 1340 MHz are relatively modest by modern standards. The data shows that the GPU’s performance scales poorly with the game's demands. At 1080p "Low" settings, the card achieves 54 FPS, which is the highest average recorded. This is a scenario where the GPU's pixel fill rate (42.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (193.0 GTexel/s) are not overwhelmed. However, the moment the settings are raised, the frame rate plummets. At 1080p "Ultra", the average FPS drops to 30, a 44% reduction from the "Low" preset. This shows how quickly the Polaris 20 chip becomes the limiting factor when the game's render complexity increases.

The GPU's benchmark scores also provide context. With a percentileVsAllGpus of 53, it sits in the middle of the pack, and its average benchmark score of 12928 places it near competitors like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (which has a deltaPct of -0.4). This indicates that the RX 580 is a mid-range performer, and the measured FPS in Flight Simulator is consistent with this position. The data does not show any VRAM capacity issues (e.g., the game failing to load textures), but rather a raw performance limit. The 8 GB VRAM is likely sufficient for the asset sizes, but the GPU's shading units and TMUs are unable to process the scene fast enough to produce higher frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a significantly more modern and powerful component than the GPU. With 10 cores and 16 threads, it offers a high level of multi-threaded performance, which is evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23391. Its boost clock of 4.90 GHz ensures strong single-thread performance, reflected in a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3302. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for its complex simulation logic and world generation, the CPU's role is to calculate physics, AI, and the game's core loop.

The data suggests that the i5-12600KF is not the primary bottleneck in this system. The FPS scaling with resolution is a clear sign of a GPU limit. However, the CPU's performance is not irrelevant. At 1080p "Low" settings, the system achieves 54 FPS. This is a scenario where the GPU is not as heavily loaded, and the CPU's ability to process the simulation becomes more important. The CPU's high single-core boost clock of 4.90 GHz is likely what allows the game to reach this 54 FPS figure, as it can maintain a steady stream of draw calls and simulation updates.

The CPU's benchmark scores place it in a high-performance tier. Its percentileVsAllCpus is 79, and its average benchmark score of 27799 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i9-10900K (deltaPct of -0.3). This shows that the CPU is a strong performer. In the context of this game, the CPU's 20 MB of L3 cache is also a valuable asset for storing the game's active data. The data implies that if the GPU were more powerful, the i5-12600KF would likely be able to drive significantly higher frame rates, especially at 1080p. The measured results are not showing a CPU limitation; rather, they are showing a system that is hampered by its graphics card. The CPU is ready to do more work, but the GPU cannot keep up with the frame rendering requests.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination achieves in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS is 54, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the "Low" settings preset.

Q: How does the performance at 1440p "Medium" compare to 1080p "Medium"?

A: At 1440p "Medium", the average FPS is 34, while at 1080p "Medium" it is 42. This represents a 19% decrease in average FPS when moving up to the higher resolution.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest average FPS is 18, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with the "Ultra" settings preset.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12600KF a significant performance outlier compared to its closest rivals?

A: No. Its average benchmark score is 27799, which is within 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-10900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, indicating it is a very typical performer in its class.

Q: What is the performance difference between the "Low" and "Ultra" presets at 2560x1440?

A: The "Low" preset achieves an average of 43 FPS, while the "Ultra" preset achieves an average of 24 FPS. This is a 44.2% drop in average FPS from the lowest to the highest settings preset.

Q: Does the data show any instances where the game is unplayable?

A: Yes. At 3840x2160, all presets except "Low" (32 FPS) produce average FPS below 30, with "High" at 19 FPS and "Ultra" at 18 FPS, which would be considered a poor experience for a flight simulator.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12600KF and AMD Radeon RX 580 ranks 3376 out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 9.1% of all tested systems. This ranking is a stark illustration of the performance gap between this setup and others that have been benchmarked.

This low rank is almost entirely attributable to the GPU's performance. While the CPU is a high-end part, the GPU is not. The data shows that the system is heavily GPU-bound, and the RX 580's mid-range performance (percentileVsAllGpus of 53) drags the entire combo down. The ranking is a reflection of the system's inability to produce high frame rates at demanding settings, which is a critical factor for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The fact that this combo is in the bottom 10% of all tested combos indicates that most other systems, even those with lower-end CPUs, are likely to outperform it if they have a more capable graphics card. The rank is a numerical confirmation of what the FPS data already suggests: this is a severely unbalanced pair for this specific game.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system's capabilities across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 54 at "Low" settings to 30 at "Ultra". The "Medium" preset achieves an average of 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48. The "High" preset averages 31 FPS. This resolution is the only one where the system approaches playable frame rates, and only at the "Low" setting.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. The "Low" preset averages 43 FPS, which is still a playable figure. The "Medium" preset averages 34 FPS (min 29, max 39), and the "High" preset averages 25 FPS. The "Ultra" preset falls to an average of 24 FPS, which is marginal for a smooth experience. At this resolution, the system is clearly struggling to maintain high frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the results are poor. The "Low" preset averages 32 FPS, which is borderline. The "Medium" preset averages 25 FPS (min 21, max 29). The "High" preset averages 19 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 18 FPS. The data from this resolution confirms that the GPU is completely overwhelmed, and the system is not suitable for 4K gaming in this title. The frame rates at 4K are consistently below 30 FPS, which is a common threshold for playability. The measured data shows a clear and consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience is achieved at 1920x1080 with the "Low" settings preset, which yields an average of 54 FPS. This is the only configuration that provides a consistently smooth frame rate in the dataset. While "Low" settings may not showcase the game's visual fidelity, it is the only way to get a playable experience with this hardware. The "Medium" preset at 1080p, with an average of 42 FPS, is also a viable option, offering a better visual balance while still maintaining a playable frame rate, though it may see dips to 36 FPS.

For users with a 2560x1440 monitor, the "Low" preset is the only acceptable choice, with an average of 43 FPS. Pushing to "Medium" at this resolution results in an average of 34 FPS, which is on the edge of playability for a flight simulator, and the minimum of 29 FPS indicates potential stuttering. At 4K, the data shows that no preset provides a satisfactory experience. The "Low" preset at 32 FPS is the only option that is even close to playable, and it would still be a subpar experience. The data strongly suggests that users should prioritize 1080p resolution and use the "Low" or "Medium" presets to get the most out of this hardware combination. The "Ultra" preset should be avoided at all resolutions, as the performance penalty is significant and does not offer a playable experience.