Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a 10-core, 16-thread Alder Lake-S processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its hybrid architecture combines performance and efficiency cores, with a 20 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core. For a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the high boost clock is critical. The 3dmark_single_thread score of 1016 and the cinebench_r23_singlecore score of 3302 indicate strong per-core performance, which directly contributes to maintaining fluid frame pacing when the simulator processes aircraft systems, weather, and terrain physics.

The CPU’s multi-threaded capabilities also matter, as Microsoft Flight Simulator offloads tasks like AI traffic, airport ground services, and world-building to additional threads. The cinebench_r23_multicore score of 23391 and the passmark_multithread score of 27575 show substantial parallel throughput. In the measured data, the CPU appears to be a limiting factor at lower resolutions when the GPU is less stressed. At 1080p Low settings, the average FPS reaches 119, which is near the ceiling for many displays, but the gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is only 53 FPS (119 vs 66). This suggests that while the CPU can push high frame rates at low graphical loads, its performance is not the sole bottleneck; the GPU still handles a significant portion of the workload.

The processor’s position in the broader market is solid: it sits at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27799. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-10900K, scores 27872, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the i5-12600KF is essentially on par with that higher-tier part from the previous generation. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, a popular gaming CPU, scores 27896, again just 0.3% higher. This close grouping indicates that for pure computational ability, the i5-12600KF does not lag behind its competitors, making it a robust choice for a simulation title where both single-thread and multi-thread performance are exercised simultaneously.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s. Its boost clock is 2460 MHz, and it contains 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams high-resolution satellite imagery and detailed photogrammetry, memory bandwidth and capacity are crucial. The 8 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p and 1440p at most settings, but at 4K Ultra, the GPU is pushed hard, as evidenced by the 40 FPS average at 3840x2160 Ultra.

The RTX 4060’s 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores support ray tracing and DLSS, though the measured FPS data does not include ray-traced scenarios. The GPU’s FP32 throughput of 15.11 TFLOPS is substantial, but the memory bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s is modest compared to higher-tier cards. This becomes apparent in the 4K results: at 4K High, the average FPS is 42, and at 4K Ultra it drops to 40. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is only 2 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is hitting a memory bandwidth or shading ceiling rather than a pure compute limit.

The GPU’s percentile rank among all GPUs is 61, with an average benchmark score of 17639. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7790, scores 17666, a delta of -0.2%, which is a surprising comparison given the generational gap, but the data shows they are numerically close in synthetic benchmarks. The AMD Radeon 780M, an integrated GPU, scores 17588, just 0.3% lower, highlighting how efficient modern iGPUs have become. In practice, the RTX 4060 delivers playable frame rates in this simulator, but the 8 GB VRAM may require texture quality reductions at 4K, as the gap between Low (71 FPS) and Medium (55 FPS) at 4K is 16 FPS, indicating a steep scaling curve.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-12600KF compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-12600KF has an average benchmark score of 27799, which is just 0.3% lower than the Intel Core i9-10900K’s 27872 and 0.3% lower than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s 27896. This places it in a dead heat with those CPUs.

Q: What is the RTX 4060’s VRAM capacity and how does it affect 4K performance?

A: The RTX 4060 has 8 GB of GDDR6 VRAM. In the measured data, 4K Ultra yields 40 FPS and 4K High yields 42 FPS, a narrow 2 FPS gap, which suggests the GPU is constrained by memory bandwidth or capacity rather than pure compute at these settings.

Q: Which resolution provides the highest average FPS for this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 119 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 96 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 71 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck at 1080p Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the average FPS is 93 with a minimum of 79 and maximum of 107. This wide min-max range suggests the CPU is intermittently limiting, as the simulator’s single-threaded components can cause frame dips even when the GPU is not saturated.

Q: How does the RTX 4060’s synthetic benchmark score compare to the AMD Radeon 780M?

A: The RTX 4060 scores 17639 in average benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon 780M scores 17588, a delta of 0.3%. This indicates the discrete GPU is only marginally ahead of the integrated solution in synthetic tests, though real gaming performance differs.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo of the Intel Core i5-12600KF and RTX 4060 ranks 1978 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the upper-middle tier of all configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a clear matrix of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 119 at Low to 66 at Ultra. Medium settings show an average of 93 FPS with a minimum of 79 and maximum of 107, indicating stable frame delivery. High settings yield 70 FPS, which is a 23 FPS drop from Low, showing that the GPU begins to take on more load as graphical effects increase.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages decline predictably. Low settings produce 96 FPS, a 23 FPS reduction from 1080p Low. Medium settings average 75 FPS with a min-max range of 64 to 86. High settings average 56 FPS, and Ultra averages 54 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds effects that do not proportionally impact frame time at this resolution, or that the CPU is starting to bottleneck the GPU’s ability to render more complex scenes.

At 3840x2160, the averages compress further. Low settings yield 71 FPS, Medium averages 55 FPS with a min-max of 47 to 64, High averages 42 FPS, and Ultra averages 40 FPS. The difference between 1080p Ultra (66 FPS) and 4K Ultra (40 FPS) is 26 FPS, a 39% drop. This indicates that the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, as the CPU has more headroom to feed frames when the pixel count increases.

The Medium preset at each resolution shows the most consistent frame pacing, with min FPS values that are only 10-12% below the average. For example, at 1440p Medium, the min is 64 and the average is 75, a 14.7% deviation. At 4K Medium, the min is 47 and the average is 55, a 14.5% deviation. This consistency is valuable for a flight simulator where smoothness is more important than raw FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the system’s balance. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 119 at 1080p to 96 at 1440p (a 19% decrease) and then to 71 at 4K (a 40% decrease from 1080p). This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario at lower graphical settings, where the CPU can keep up with frame generation, but the GPU’s pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth become bottlenecks as resolution increases.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is less steep in absolute terms but still significant. From 1080p Ultra (66 FPS) to 1440p Ultra (54 FPS) is an 18% drop, and to 4K Ultra (40 FPS) is a 39% drop from 1080p. The relative consistency of these percentage drops across Low and Ultra presets suggests that neither the CPU nor the GPU is overwhelmingly dominant; rather, the system scales in a balanced manner. However, the fact that 4K Low (71 FPS) is only 5 FPS higher than 1080p Ultra (66 FPS) indicates that the GPU is the limiting component at high resolutions, as lowering settings at 4K does not yield the same frame rate as lowering settings at 1080p.

The data also shows that the jump from Medium to High at 1440p costs 19 FPS (75 to 56), while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS (56 to 54). This suggests that the High preset includes effects that are disproportionately expensive, while the Ultra preset adds mostly cosmetic features that have minimal performance impact. At 4K, the same pattern holds: Medium to High costs 13 FPS (55 to 42), and High to Ultra costs 2 FPS (42 to 40). The 13 FPS drop from Medium to High at 4K indicates that High settings introduce a significant GPU load, likely from higher-resolution textures or more complex lighting.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the Medium preset offers the best balance between visual fidelity and frame rate stability. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 93 with a minimum of 79, which is well above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. At 1440p Medium, the average is 75 with a minimum of 64, still playable but closer to the edge. At 4K Medium, the average is 55 with a minimum of 47, which may be acceptable for a flight simulator where precise control is more important than ultra-high frame rates.

The High preset is not recommended for this combo at higher resolutions. At 1440p High, the average FPS is 56, and at 4K High, it is 42. These values are below the 60 FPS target and could lead to noticeable stutter during complex scenes with heavy weather or city overflights. The Ultra preset provides only marginal gains over High (2 FPS on average across resolutions) while likely adding more visual effects, so it is the least efficient choice.

For users prioritizing smoothness, the Low preset at 1080p offers 119 FPS, which is nearly double the 60 FPS target. However, the visual compromises of Low settings in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies on realistic scenery, may not be worth the frame rate increase. The Medium preset appears to be the sweet spot, as it provides a 93 FPS average at 1080p and a 75 FPS average at 1440p, both of which are playable. The min FPS values at Medium (79 at 1080p, 64 at 1440p) also remain above 60, ensuring that frame dips do not drop below the smoothness threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12600KF and RTX 4060 combination ranks 1978 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 53rd percentile of all combinations, meaning roughly half of the tested systems perform better and half perform worse. Given that the CPU sits at the 79th percentile and the GPU at the 61st percentile, the combo’s overall rank is dragged down by the GPU’s relatively lower standing.

The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, score nearly identically in synthetic benchmarks, but their real-world gaming performance may differ due to cache architecture. The GPU’s nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon 780M, are integrated graphics, which highlights how the RTX 4060’s discrete performance is not substantially ahead of the best iGPUs in synthetic tests, though it excels in actual gaming workloads. The combo rank of 1978 suggests that for this simulator, the balance between CPU and GPU is adequate but not exceptional. Users looking for higher ranks would likely need a GPU with more VRAM or bandwidth, as the 4K results indicate the RTX 4060 struggles to maintain 60 FPS at Ultra settings. The 1080p and 1440p results are more favorable, making this combo a competent choice for mid-range flight simulation at those resolutions.