Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a clear and consistent scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the Low preset, the frame rate drops from 104.5 FPS at 1080p to 82.6 FPS at 1440p, then further to 60.6 FPS at 4K. This represents a reduction of approximately 21% when moving from 1080p to 1440p, and another 27% from 1440p to 4K. The pattern indicates that even at the lowest settings, the rendering load scales substantially with pixel count, which is typical for a flight simulator that must draw vast terrain and sky detail.

The Medium preset shows a similar trajectory: 80.2 FPS at 1080p, 62.9 FPS at 1440p, and 48 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 22% and 24% respectively, showing that the scaling remains nearly linear across these resolution steps. This consistency suggests the GPU is the primary limiting factor at Medium settings, as the workload increases proportionally with the number of pixels being rendered.

High settings produce 60 FPS at 1080p, 52.2 FPS at 1440p, and 34.7 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1440p to 4K is particularly steep at 33%, indicating that the higher fidelity textures and effects at High settings amplify the pixel-count penalty. The Ultra preset follows with 60 FPS at 1080p, 46.7 FPS at 1440p, and 33.8 FPS at 4K, showing a 22% decline between 1080p and 1440p, then a 28% decline to 4K.

What these numbers reveal about the limiting component is nuanced. At 1080p, both High and Ultra presets cap out at exactly 60 FPS, which suggests the CPU or some other system bottleneck is preventing higher frame rates at lower resolutions. The i7-12700KF has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz across 12 cores and 20 threads, which should be capable in this title, but the identical 60 FPS readings at High and Ultra for 1080p point to a frame rate ceiling that is not GPU-imposed. As resolution increases, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint, evidenced by the widening gap between settings at 4K where Ultra manages only 33.8 FPS versus Low's 60.6 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-12700KF and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT achieves a rank of 1164 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the 35th percentile of all combinations tested, meaning roughly two-thirds of tested systems deliver higher frame rates in this specific title. The ranking is notable because the individual components hold differing positions in their respective benchmark hierarchies.

The CPU sits at the 89th percentile among all processors tested, with an average benchmark score of 35355. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i5-14400 with a score of 35336 (a delta of 0.1%), the Intel Core i7-13800H at 35416 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i9-12900HX at 35289 (0.2%), and the Intel Core i5-13600T at 35256 (0.3%). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the i7-12700KF is essentially performance-equivalent to a cluster of mid-range and upper-mid-range processors from both desktop and mobile lineups.

The GPU, by contrast, sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 20146. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 20088 (0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 20258 (-0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER at 19774 (1.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (-1.9%). The RX 7600 XT is therefore positioned within a tight performance band, with the desktop RX 7600 being essentially its twin and the RTX 2060 SUPER trailing by less than 2%.

The disparity between the CPU's high percentile ranking and the GPU's more modest standing helps explain the combo's overall rank. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to be demanding on both subsystems, but the data here suggests the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing, pulling the combined rank below what the CPU alone would suggest. The 60 FPS ceiling at 1080p High and Ultra further supports this interpretation, as the GPU appears unable to push beyond that threshold even when the CPU has headroom.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT brings 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. This generous memory capacity is a distinctive feature for this class of GPU, and in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams extensive terrain and scenery data, the 16 GB allocation can help maintain consistent frame pacing without texture thrashing.

The GPU's clock behavior shows a base clock of 1980 MHz, a game clock of 2470 MHz, and a boost clock of 2755 MHz. The gap between game and boost clocks is 285 MHz, which represents the dynamic range the card can exploit under varying thermal and power conditions. The measured FPS data suggests that at 4K Ultra, the card is operating near its limit, delivering only 33.8 FPS, while at 1080p Low it reaches 104.5 FPS, showing the full extent of its performance envelope.

The RX 7600 XT's benchmark results place it at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, with a PassMark G3D score of 17132 and a PassMark GPU compute score of 8987. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2348, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 83114 and 88301 respectively. These figures position the card as a solid mid-range performer, but the measured game data shows that Microsoft Flight Simulator's ultra settings at high resolutions push it to its limits, with sub-35 FPS results at 4K Ultra.

The 128-bit memory bus is worth noting in the context of this game. While the 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for many titles, flight simulation often requires large data transfers for terrain geometry and textures. The combination of 16 GB capacity with this bandwidth appears sufficient for 1080p and 1440p play at most settings, but the 4K results suggest the memory subsystem becomes a constraint at higher resolutions, particularly when combined with the shader and texture demands of Ultra settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance on which preset offers the best experience with this combination. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers exactly 60 FPS, which is a common target for smooth gameplay in simulation titles. The Ultra preset also hits 60 FPS at this resolution, meaning there is no frame rate penalty for selecting Ultra over High at 1080p. Given that both presets produce identical average FPS, choosing Ultra at 1080p is the optimal decision, as it provides the highest visual fidelity without sacrificing performance.

At 2560x1440, the situation changes. The High preset produces 52.2 FPS, while the Medium preset delivers 62.9 FPS, a difference of 10.7 FPS or roughly 20%. The Ultra preset falls to 46.7 FPS, which may be below the comfort threshold for many users. The Low preset achieves 82.6 FPS, but the visual compromise is substantial. For 1440p, the Medium preset represents the best balance between visual quality and frame rate, offering a 62.9 FPS average that stays above the 60 FPS target while still providing reasonable detail levels.

At 3840x2160, all presets struggle to maintain high frame rates. The Low preset delivers 60.6 FPS, which is the only setting that clears the 60 FPS mark. The Medium preset drops to 48 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 34.7 and 33.8 FPS respectively. For 4K users, the Low preset is the only viable option for smooth gameplay, while Medium might be acceptable for users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 12.6 FPS, which is significant, but the visual difference between these presets in a flight simulator can be substantial due to terrain and cloud rendering quality.

The overall recommendation across all resolutions is to prioritize the Medium preset at 1440p as the best experience, as it provides the highest resolution with a playable frame rate. For users with 1080p displays, Ultra is the clear choice given the identical 60 FPS result compared to High. For 4K, users must accept either Low settings for smooth performance or Medium settings for a playable but not fully smooth experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the frame rate progression across presets is as follows: Low delivers 104.5 FPS, Medium drops to 80.2 FPS, High and Ultra both produce exactly 60 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 24.3 FPS, a 23% reduction, while the drop from Medium to High is 20.2 FPS, a 25% reduction. The identical results for High and Ultra indicate that the additional rendering features in Ultra do not impose a measurable frame rate cost at this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers shift downward across all presets. Low produces 82.6 FPS, Medium delivers 62.9 FPS, High reaches 52.2 FPS, and Ultra falls to 46.7 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 19.7 FPS, from Medium to High is 10.7 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 5.5 FPS. The diminishing frame rate penalties as settings increase suggest that the rendering pipeline becomes progressively more efficient at higher settings, or that the game's optimization distributes the workload differently across preset tiers.

At 3840x2160, the measured values are 60.6 FPS for Low, 48 FPS for Medium, 34.7 FPS for High, and 33.8 FPS for Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 12.6 FPS, from Medium to High is 13.3 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 0.9 FPS. This final near-zero delta between High and Ultra at 4K indicates that the GPU is so heavily constrained at this resolution that the visual differences between these two presets have virtually no impact on frame rate.

Comparing across resolutions, the Low preset shows the smallest total penalty from 1080p to 4K, going from 104.5 to 60.6 FPS, a 42% reduction. The Medium preset drops from 80.2 to 48 FPS, a 40% reduction. High falls from 60 to 34.7 FPS, a 42% reduction, and Ultra goes from 60 to 33.8 FPS, a 44% reduction. These similar percentage drops across presets indicate that resolution scaling is the dominant factor, with preset level having a secondary but still significant impact.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF is a 12-core, 20-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It features a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, with a 125W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 25 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU's benchmark results show strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28979 and a single-core score of 4091, while Geekbench reports 13596 for multi-core and 2526 for single-core.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial because the game simulates extensive physics, weather, and AI traffic systems. The 12 cores and 20 threads provide ample parallel processing capacity for these workloads. The 5.00 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance, which is critical for the main simulation loop that cannot always be parallelized. The PassMark single-thread score of 3984 confirms this capability, while the multithread score of 34092 shows the processor's overall throughput.

The 60 FPS ceiling observed at 1080p for both High and Ultra presets is likely attributable to CPU limitations rather than GPU constraints. The RX 7600 XT is capable of higher frame rates at lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 104.5 FPS Low preset result at 1080p. The fact that High and Ultra both plateau at 60 FPS suggests that the simulation's main thread or a specific CPU-bound subsystem cannot exceed this threshold, regardless of GPU headroom. This is a common characteristic in flight simulators, where the complexity of the simulated environment imposes a hard frame rate limit.

The CPU's percentile ranking of 89 among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 35355, places it in the upper tier of available hardware. Its nearest rivals, including the Core i5-14400 and Core i9-12900HX, all score within 0.3% of the i7-12700KF, indicating that this processor is well-matched to its peers in synthetic workloads. However, the measured game data shows that even this level of CPU performance is insufficient to push Microsoft Flight Simulator beyond 60 FPS at 1080p on High or Ultra settings, underscoring the game's exceptional CPU demands.