Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a demanding workload for this CPU and GPU pairing. Across the measured configurations, the highest average frame rate achieved is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls just short of the 60 FPS playable threshold defined in the database. No tested configuration reaches or exceeds 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently below playable levels. The Low preset delivers an average of 33 FPS, Medium drops to 26 FPS with a recorded minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra also averages 19 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is another 7 FPS. High and Ultra produce identical averages, suggesting that at this resolution the rendering pipeline is saturated before Ultra's additional detail can manifest as a measurable frame rate difference.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern repeats with slightly higher numbers. Low reaches 45 FPS average, Medium hits 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p is steep. At Medium settings, the average drops from 43 FPS to 35 FPS, an 8 FPS reduction. At Low settings, the drop is 11 FPS, from 56 to 45.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low averages 56 FPS, the highest recorded value in the entire dataset. Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS. High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, while Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS. This compression at the top end indicates that the graphics card becomes the limiting factor as preset complexity increases, even at the lowest resolution tested.

The min/max data is only recorded for Medium settings across all three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the 22 to 30 FPS range shows a spread of 8 FPS. At 2560x1440, the 30 to 40 FPS range shows a spread of 10 FPS. At 1920x1080, the 37 to 50 FPS range shows a spread of 13 FPS. The wider dynamic range at lower resolutions suggests that CPU-driven frame time variability becomes more visible when the GPU is less saturated.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Intel Arc B390 carries only a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710, all of which are legacy or low-end parts. This positions the B390 far below the performance tier required for smooth flight simulation at high detail.

The CPU, by contrast, is a strong component. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37943. It posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20485 and a single-core score of 2211. In Geekbench, it reaches 17906 multicore and 3023 single-core. These numbers indicate ample compute headroom for simulation logic, AI traffic, and physics. The bottleneck is clearly not the processor.

The resolution scaling in the measured data confirms this. From 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 56 to 45, a 19.6% reduction. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Low, it drops from 45 to 33, a 26.7% reduction. If the CPU were the primary limiter, resolution scaling would produce much smaller frame rate changes, since pixel count would not significantly affect processor workload. Instead, each resolution step produces a large FPS penalty, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario.

The preset scaling tells a similar story. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average by 13 FPS, from Medium to High by 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra by only 2 FPS. The diminishing returns at the top end suggest that the GPU cannot translate additional graphical features into higher frame rates once it is already saturated. At 3840x2160, High and Ultra both average 19 FPS, an identical result that further confirms the GPU is the hard ceiling.

The CPU's role becomes more relevant in the frame time consistency data. At Medium settings, the spread between minimum and maximum FPS widens as resolution decreases, from 8 FPS at 4K to 13 FPS at 1080p. This pattern implies that at lower resolutions, where the GPU has more idle time, the CPU's frame pacing becomes more visible. However, even this effect is minor. The overall conclusion from the data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc B390 is the limiting component at every resolution and preset tested.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database defines playable as 60 FPS or higher. No measured configuration reaches this threshold, so no resolution has a playable settings recommendation.

At 3840x2160, the highest average is 33 FPS at Low settings. Medium averages 26 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. None of these come close to the 60 FPS target. The best option for users who must run at 4K would be Low, but even that renders the simulator well below smoothness expectations.

At 2560x1440, the highest average is 45 FPS at Low settings. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The 45 FPS result is the closest any QHD configuration comes to playability, but it still misses the 60 FPS bar by 15 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS, the best result in the entire dataset. This is 4 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution with the least demanding preset, this combo cannot deliver a steady 60 FPS experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The recorded data shows that users would need to accept either a lower internal resolution, reduced rendering scale, or other compromises outside the tested presets to approach playable frame rates. As configured, the hardware cannot meet the 60 FPS standard at any resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

This CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11.1% of all combos. The ranking reflects the severe GPU limitation discussed above. A processor in the 86th percentile cannot compensate for a graphics solution whose only recorded benchmark score places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

The rank position indicates that the vast majority of tested hardware combinations deliver better performance in this title. Flight simulation is known for heavy rendering loads, and the B390's integrated-class performance is insufficient for the visual complexity of Microsoft Flight Simulator's world rendering, aircraft detail, and weather systems. The CPU's high single-thread score of 2211 in Cinebench R23 and 3023 in Geekbench single-core would serve a much stronger GPU well, but in this pairing that potential is unused.

The gap between the combo's rank and the CPU's individual percentile is stark. The 9700X ranks in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the combo ranks in the 11th percentile of all combos for this game. This 75 percentile point discrepancy illustrates how completely the GPU dictates the outcome. Users considering this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect performance near the bottom of the database, regardless of the processor's capabilities.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, based on average benchmark scores, are all within 0.4% of its 37943 average. The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 37911, a delta of 0.1%. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 also scores 37904, another 0.1% delta. The Intel Core 5 211E scores 37829, a 0.3% delta. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37804, a 0.4% delta. Any of these processors paired with the same Intel Arc B390 would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the GPU would remain the limiting factor.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest GPU rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, a 1.3% delta from the B390's 1482. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, a 1.5% delta. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, a 2.5% delta. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, a 2.7% delta. These deltas are small enough that swapping the B390 for any of these GPUs would yield essentially the same experience in this game, all of them firmly below playable performance levels.

Combining any of the four rival CPUs with any of the four rival GPUs would reproduce the same fundamental problem: a strong processor shackled to a very weak graphics solution. The recorded data shows that the CPU has no meaningful influence on the final frame rate in this configuration, so CPU swaps within this performance class would change nothing. GPU swaps within the B390's rival class would also change little, since all of these parts cluster within 2.7% of each other.

FAQ

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

A: No. The highest average frame rate recorded across all resolutions and presets is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No configuration reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best performance this combo achieves?

A: The best measured result is 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 on the Low preset. At Medium settings on the same resolution, the average drops to 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor?

A: The GPU. The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 1482, while the Ryzen 7 9700X sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 37943. Resolution and preset scaling both show GPU-bound behavior.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11.1% of the database.

Q: What settings should I use at 4K?

A: None of the tested settings at 3840x2160 are playable. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. All fall far below the 60 FPS target.

Q: Would a different CPU help this GPU perform better?

A: No. The nearest CPU rivals to the Ryzen 7 9700X, including the Intel Core i9-14901E and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, score within 0.1% of its average. Since the GPU is the bottleneck, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates.