Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F sits in a well-populated performance tier. Its average benchmark score of 25005 places it within 0.4% of several comparable processors. The closest match is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which scores 24964, a difference of only 0.2%. The Intel Core i7-11850H trails by 0.3% with a score of 24935, while the Intel Core i7-13620H is 0.4% behind at 24911. On the other side, the AMD EPYC 9474F leads by a marginal 0.4% with a score of 25103. In practical terms, any of these four CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same graphics hardware. The processor's 77th percentile ranking among all tested CPUs reinforces that this is a mid-to-upper tier part, not a flagship, but also not a weak link in a gaming system.

The Intel Arc B390 presents a very different picture. Its average benchmark score of 1482 puts it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, a bottom-tier result. The nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, 1.3% behind; the GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% behind; the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% behind; and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% behind. This clustering shows that the Arc B390 performs in the same league as decade-old entry-level discrete graphics solutions. The B390's single recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1482, confirms it is an integrated graphics solution with very limited compute resources: 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput looks respectable on paper, but the system-shared memory architecture and lack of dedicated VRAM bottleneck real-world gaming performance severely.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU is more than adequate while the GPU is the limiting factor. Users coming from a Ryzen 5 7500F or Core i7-13620H system would notice no meaningful CPU difference. Users expecting the Arc B390 to behave like a modern discrete GPU will be disappointed; its closest performance relatives are all from an era before DirectX 12 Ultimate was standard.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F a fast processor for gaming?

A: Yes. It scores 20851 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2943 in single-core, with a 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is not the bottleneck; the GPU is.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to other GPUs?

A: It ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 1482. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GeForce GT 625 OEM, and GeForce GT 710, all within 2.7% of its score. This is entry-level integrated graphics territory.

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. At no resolution or preset tested does the combo reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best recorded result is 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls just short of 60 FPS.

Q: What resolution gives the highest frame rate?

A: 1920x1080. At Low settings the combo averages 56 FPS, at Medium 43 FPS, at High 33 FPS, and at Ultra 31 FPS. Higher resolutions produce lower results: at 2560x1440 the best is 45 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160 the best is 33 FPS on Low.

Q: Does the Arc B390 support modern graphics features?

A: Yes, in terms of API support. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It also has 12 ray tracing cores. However, its raw performance is too low to make meaningful use of these features at playable frame rates.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: It ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11% of systems.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data covers three resolutions and four quality presets. All figures are average FPS unless otherwise noted, with min and max values recorded only for Medium settings.

At 3840x2160, the combo delivers 33 FPS on Low, 26 FPS on Medium with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, 19 FPS on High, and 19 FPS on Ultra. The Ultra and High presets are effectively identical in performance, both hitting 19 FPS, which suggests the GPU is completely saturated and the extra quality settings do not change the rendering cost at this resolution. The jump from Medium to Low gains 7 FPS, a 27% improvement, but even the best result at 4K remains less than 60% of the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the pattern repeats with slightly higher numbers. Low settings produce 45 FPS, Medium produces 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40, High produces 26 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1 FPS, again indicating GPU saturation. The difference between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 9 FPS. Every preset at this resolution stays well below 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings yield 56 FPS, the highest average recorded in the entire dataset. Medium produces 43 FPS with a range of 37 to 50, High produces 33 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS. The Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that approaches playability, coming within 4 FPS of the 60 FPS threshold. The step from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, a 23% drop, while the step from Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS.

The overall pattern across all resolutions shows that the Arc B390's performance scales predictably with resolution and settings. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 25 FPS, at 1440p it is 20 FPS, and at 4K it is 14 FPS. This diminishing delta at higher resolutions confirms that the GPU is the limiting component; lowering settings provides less benefit when the resolution itself already overwhelms the hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations in the database. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe performance limitation. The Ryzen 5 8400F is a capable processor with a 77th percentile CPU ranking, but the Arc B390's 9th percentile GPU ranking drags the overall system down.

The rank is consistent with the measured FPS data. A system that cannot reach 60 FPS at 1080p Low in a flight simulator, which is typically more CPU-bound than fast-paced action games, will inevitably rank near the bottom when thousands of other combos are considered. The 3714 total combos include systems with discrete GPUs ranging from entry-level to flagship, and the Arc B390's integrated-class performance places this combo alongside much older or much weaker hardware.

It is worth noting what this rank does not mean. The CPU is not the problem; its benchmark scores and percentile ranking place it comfortably above average. If paired with a stronger GPU, the same processor would likely produce a much higher combo rank. The data shows a system held back entirely by its graphics solution.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset tested. The verdict data lists playable settings as empty for all three resolutions: 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The best measured result is 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls 4 FPS short of the threshold.

At 3840x2160, the maximum achievable average is 33 FPS on Low, which is 45% below the target. At 2560x1440, the maximum is 45 FPS on Low, 25% below target. At 1920x1080, the maximum is 56 FPS on Low, 7% below target. No preset at any resolution clears 60 FPS, and even the minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings at 1080p (37 FPS) and 1440p (30 FPS) show that frame pacing would be inconsistent during demanding scenes.

For users who accept lower frame rates, the combo is technically playable in the sense that it produces a steady image. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37, which is smooth enough for casual flying. The Low preset at 1080p at 56 FPS is the closest to a satisfying experience. At higher resolutions, the frame rates drop into the 20s and 30s, which would feel sluggish for a simulator that requires precise control inputs.

The conclusion is straightforward: this hardware combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at standard playability expectations. The processor has ample headroom, but the integrated graphics solution cannot deliver the required performance. Users would need a discrete GPU to reach 60 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best option is Low settings, which produces 33 FPS average. Medium produces 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, High produces 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 19 FPS. Low is the only reasonable choice at this resolution, but even it falls far below the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, no preset reaches 60 FPS either. Low settings produce 45 FPS average, the best result at this resolution. Medium produces 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40, High produces 26 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. Low is the recommended preset here, but it still does not achieve playable performance.

At 1920x1080, the situation improves slightly but still does not meet the threshold. Low settings produce 56 FPS average, the highest recorded result in the entire dataset. Medium produces 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50, High produces 33 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS. The Low preset at 1080p is the most demanding configuration that stays closest to 60 FPS, falling only 4 FPS short. Users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate could choose Medium at 43 FPS, but the data clearly shows that Low at 1080p is the best-performing combination.

In summary, the best settings per resolution are Low at every resolution, with 1080p Low being the only configuration that approaches the playable threshold. The performance gap between Low and the next preset up is substantial at every resolution, and the gap widens as resolution increases. The Arc B390 simply does not have enough rendering power to handle higher presets in Microsoft Flight Simulator.