Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does this CPU compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600KF posts an average benchmark score of 27,827, which is effectively tied with the Intel Core i9-10900K (27,829, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12600K (27,851, -0.1% delta). It sits slightly ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700H (27,716, +0.4% delta) and slightly behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H (27,872, -0.2% delta). This places the chip in the 84th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to other graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 holds an average benchmark score of 12,331, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 (12,241, +0.7% delta), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (12,490, -1.3% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (12,504, -1.4% delta), and NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,547, -1.7% delta) all score marginally higher.

Q: How does this combo rank among tested CPU-GPU pairs in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This specific combination of the Intel Core i5-12600KF and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 ranks 1,517th out of 1,795 tested combos in the game. That places it in the bottom 15% of all tested configurations, indicating a pairing that struggles to deliver high frame rates at demanding settings.

Q: What are the CPU's core and thread counts, and its clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core i5-12600KF features 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The chip has 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, alongside 80 KB of L1 cache per core.

Q: What memory and interface specifications does the GPU offer?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory runs at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the GPU core has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz.

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

A: The best result is 80.6 FPS on average at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured configuration that breaks the 80 FPS threshold, with the next closest being 66.4 FPS at 2560x1440 on Low.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places the Intel Core i5-12600KF and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 pairing at rank 1,517 out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a low standing, roughly in the 15th percentile of all tested combinations. The rank reflects a system that can produce playable frame rates only by making significant compromises in visual fidelity or resolution.

Breaking down the measured results, the combo's performance profile shows a clear pattern: it is capable of smooth frame rates at lower settings but becomes progressively less viable as graphical demands increase. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS of 80.6 demonstrates that the hardware can handle the simulation's lighter loads. However, at 4K with Ultra settings, the average drops to 29.8 FPS, which falls below the threshold for comfortable playability in a flight simulator that benefits from smooth visuals during rapid camera movements.

The ranking versus other combos suggests that this pairing is not well-balanced for the game's demands at higher quality presets. The CPU sits in the 84th percentile among all processors, showing strong computational capability, while the GPU sits in the 51st percentile, indicating mid-pack graphics performance. This imbalance means the GPU becomes the limiting factor in most scenarios, particularly at higher resolutions and settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12600KF brings substantial processing power to this pairing. With 10 cores and 16 threads, it offers parallel processing capability that benefits the simulation's complex physics and AI calculations. The boost clock of 4.90 GHz provides strong single-thread performance, which is critical for flight simulators that often rely heavily on a single primary thread for core simulation logic.

Benchmark data supports the CPU's strength: it scores 9,846 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 1,389 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 12,373 and single-core of 2,529. The 3DMark results show scaling from 1,016 in single-thread to 7,956 in 16-thread tests, indicating efficient use of additional cores. This processing headroom means the CPU is rarely the bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator, even at lower resolutions where the GPU might be expected to carry more of the load.

However, the measured FPS data reveals that the CPU's capability does not translate into high frame rates at demanding settings. At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 43.7, which is lower than the 48.3 FPS at High settings. This suggests that while the CPU can maintain adequate performance, the overall system is constrained by other factors—primarily the GPU—when graphical settings are increased. The CPU's 84th percentile ranking among all CPUs reinforces that it is a capable component in absolute terms, but the combination's overall rank of 1,517th out of 1,795 shows that pairing a strong CPU with a mid-range GPU produces a system that cannot fully leverage the processor's strengths in this game.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four settings levels, providing a comprehensive view of performance. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 80.6 on Low to 43.7 on Ultra, with Medium at 65.7 and High at 48.3. This resolution offers the widest spread of results, showing that the hardware can exceed 60 FPS at lower settings but falls below that threshold once High or Ultra is selected.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop across all settings: Low produces 66.4 FPS, Medium 51.3 FPS, High 37.2 FPS, and Ultra 39.6 FPS. The Ultra result being higher than High is notable but within the variance of the measured data. At this resolution, only Low settings achieve a frame rate above 60 FPS, and High and Ultra both fall below 40 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are more constrained: Low averages 50.7 FPS, Medium 37.4 FPS, Ultra 29.8 FPS, and High 27.9 FPS. The High and Ultra settings produce nearly identical results, suggesting that the GPU is fully saturated at this resolution regardless of the specific preset. The 4K results show that the hardware cannot maintain 60 FPS at any settings level, with even Low falling short by nearly 10 FPS.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 is the primary constraint in this pairing. With 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth, it provides adequate resources for 1080p gaming but struggles at higher resolutions. The GPU's 1,920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs deliver a peak FP32 performance of 6.463 TFLOPS, which is modest by modern standards.

The GPU's benchmark scores reflect its mid-range positioning: a PassMark G3D score of 13,498, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 47,490, and a Vulkan score of 47,395. Its 51st percentile ranking among all GPUs places it squarely in the middle of the pack. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200, scores 12,241, just 0.7% lower, showing that the GTX 1070 is competitive with its immediate peers but not dominant.

In game performance, the GPU's limitations become evident in the scaling across settings. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low (80.6 FPS) and Ultra (43.7 FPS) is 36.9 FPS, a 46% drop. At 2560x1440, the drop from Low (66.4 FPS) to Ultra (39.6 FPS) is 26.8 FPS, a 40% reduction. At 3840x2160, the drop from Low (50.7 FPS) to Ultra (29.8 FPS) is 20.9 FPS, a 41% reduction. This consistent pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor as settings increase, with the CPU unable to compensate for the graphics card's bandwidth and compute constraints.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data suggests that the optimal balance between visual quality and frame rate depends heavily on the target resolution. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the best compromise, delivering 65.7 FPS on average. This is comfortably above 60 FPS while providing better visual fidelity than Low. High settings at 48.3 FPS are playable but may cause noticeable stutter during complex scenes, while Ultra at 43.7 FPS is likely to feel sluggish.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 66.4 FPS is the only option that maintains a frame rate above 60 FPS. Medium at 51.3 FPS is the highest settings level that remains playable, though users may notice occasional dips. High (37.2 FPS) and Ultra (39.6 FPS) are both below 40 FPS, which is generally considered too low for a smooth experience in a flight simulator where precise control inputs matter.

At 3840x2160, no settings level achieves 60 FPS. Low at 50.7 FPS is the most playable option, while Medium at 37.4 FPS is borderline. Ultra (29.8 FPS) and High (27.9 FPS) are both below 30 FPS, which is likely to cause significant visual stuttering and reduced responsiveness. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only reasonable choice, and even then, the experience will be suboptimal.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS decline from 1080p to 4K reveals the system's bottleneck characteristics. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 80.6 at 1920x1080 to 66.4 at 2560x1440 to 50.7 at 3840x2160. This represents a 17.6% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 23.6% drop from 1440p to 4K, totaling a 37.1% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

At Medium settings, the progression is 65.7 to 51.3 to 37.4 FPS, with drops of 21.9% and 27.1% respectively, for a total reduction of 43.1%. At High settings, the drops are more severe: 48.3 to 37.2 to 27.9 FPS, representing 23.0% and 25.0% drops, for a total of 42.2%. At Ultra, the progression is 43.7 to 39.6 to 29.8 FPS, with drops of 9.4% and 24.7%, totaling 31.8%.

The pattern shows that the GPU is the limiting component at all resolutions above 1080p. The relatively smaller percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra settings (9.4%) compared to the larger drop at Medium (21.9%) suggests that the GPU is already saturated at 1080p Ultra, leaving little headroom for resolution scaling. The consistent 20-25% drops from 1440p to 4K across all settings confirm that the GPU's memory bandwidth and compute capacity are the primary constraints, with the CPU's strong single-thread and multi-thread performance unable to offset the graphics card's limitations at higher pixel counts.