Microsoft Flight Simulator

Intel Core i3-12100F paired with Intel Arc B370 is an extremely constrained combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The recorded data shows that this system cannot achieve the 60 FPS playable threshold at any tested resolution or preset. The highest average frame rate recorded across all measurements is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS target. The combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations in the database. This is a system for low-resolution, low-detail flight, not for smooth high-fidelity simulation.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is none. The recorded data shows no playable settings at this resolution. The highest average FPS at 4K is 30 FPS with Low settings, which is exactly half of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings drop to 23 FPS average, High falls to 18 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. Even the best-case scenario here is far below playable.

At 2560x1440, the situation is identical: no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is 41 FPS at Low settings. Medium settings produce 32 FPS average, High settings deliver 24 FPS, and Ultra manages only 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, which is significant, but neither comes close to the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is also none. The best measured average is 50 FPS at Low settings, still 10 FPS short of the target. Medium settings yield 39 FPS, High settings produce 30 FPS, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS. The frame rate scaling from Low to Medium is a 11 FPS loss, indicating that the GPU is severely strained even at the lowest settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this configuration. The Intel Arc B370, with its 25 W TDP and system-shared memory, is fundamentally limited. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, which are over a decade old. The CPU, Intel Core i3-12100F, is far more capable, sitting in the 68th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 13494.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this. Moving from 1920x1080 Low (50 FPS) to 2560x1440 Low (41 FPS) is an 18% drop in frame rate. Moving from 2560x1440 Low to 3840x2160 Low (30 FPS) is a 27% drop. This steep degradation with resolution is classic GPU-bound behavior. The CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU cannot process the pixels fast enough.

Preset scaling also points to GPU dominance. At 1920x1080, going from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, then Medium to High costs another 9 FPS, then High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. The diminishing returns suggest that the GPU is saturated early. The CPU, with its 4 cores and 8 threads, is not the limiting factor at these low preset levels, as the single-thread and multi-thread scores are both respectable.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded averages are as follows: Low 30 FPS, Medium 23 FPS (min 20, max 27), High 18 FPS, and Ultra 17 FPS. The min and max values for Medium show a tight range, indicating consistent performance. The drop from Low to Medium is 7 FPS, from Medium to High is 5 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 1 FPS, showing diminishing returns at the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the averages are: Low 41 FPS, Medium 32 FPS (min 27, max 36), High 24 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. The Medium range has a 9 FPS spread, which is the largest recorded. The gap from Low to Medium is 9 FPS, Medium to High is 8 FPS, and High to Ultra is 1 FPS. This follows the same pattern as 4K, with the largest drops at the lower settings.

At 1920x1080, the averages are: Low 50 FPS, Medium 39 FPS (min 33, max 45), High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. The Medium range is 12 FPS wide, showing the most variance in the dataset. The drop from Low to Medium is 11 FPS, from Medium to High is 9 FPS, and High to Ultra is 2 FPS. The average frame rate at Low is the only measurement within 20% of the 60 FPS target, but it still falls short.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of 3714 tested combinations, this CPU/GPU pair ranks 3428th. That places it in the bottom 7.7% of all systems tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The 60 FPS playable threshold is unreachable at any setting, which is the primary reason for such a low rank. The CPU alone ranks in the 68th percentile, but the GPU drags the overall combo down dramatically.

The database shows that this rank is driven almost entirely by GPU limitations. The GPU sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all older, lower-end parts. The system can run the simulator, but only at frame rates that are closer to a slideshow than a playable experience. The rank reflects that reality: most other combinations tested, even with similar CPUs, achieve higher frame rates due to better GPUs.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the CPU's nearest rivals, the Intel Core i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13494. The Intel Core 3 N355 scores 13492, a difference of 0.0%. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, which is 0.3% lower. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, which is 0.7% higher. The Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, which is 1.1% lower. Any of these CPUs would behave almost identically in this pairing, as the GPU is the bottleneck.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad test. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. These rivals would all produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The user would see no meaningful difference if the GPU were swapped for any of these parts.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable 60 FPS at any resolution. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The best-case scenario is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is a slideshow for a flight simulator. At 2560x1440, the same outcome, no playable settings, with a maximum of 41 FPS at Low. At 1920x1080, the closest result is 50 FPS at Low, but that still falls 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS target.

The fundamental issue is the GPU. The Intel Arc B370, with its 25 W TDP and system-shared memory, is not designed for gaming at this level. Its 3DMark score of 1184 is in the bottom 5% of all GPUs, and its rivals are all older parts with similar limitations. The CPU, i3-12100F, is not the problem; it has enough single-thread performance to drive the simulation logic, but the GPU cannot render the scene at a sufficient frame rate.

Users with this hardware can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but it will be a low-resolution, low-detail experience. The frame rates are playable only in a very loose sense, and the game's complex, dynamic scenery will likely cause stutters. The database recommends a different GPU if a playable experience is expected. At any of the three tested resolutions, the system should be set to Low presets, and even then, the frame rate will be below the playable threshold.