Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for this combination shows that no preset at any tested resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict fields for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080 all return no playable settings, meaning the Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the Intel Arc B390 cannot sustain 60 FPS at any of the measured quality levels.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that still delivers the highest frame rate is Low, with an average of 33 FPS. High and Ultra both average 19 FPS, while Medium sits at 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30.

At 2560x1440, Low again provides the best result, averaging 45 FPS. Medium averages 35 FPS (minimum 30, maximum 40), High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 56 FPS, which is the closest recorded result to the 60 FPS threshold but still falls short. Medium averages 43 FPS (minimum 37, maximum 50), High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. Since no settings achieve 60 FPS, the database records no "best settings" for any resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database, based on average benchmark scores, are closely matched. The Intel Core 3 N355 has an average score of 13492, a 0% delta from the Core i3-12100F's 13494. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, which is 0.7% higher. The Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, 0.3% lower. The Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, 1.1% lower. These differences are negligible, so any of these processors would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B390's nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts with very small deltas. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, 1.3% higher than the Arc B390's 1482. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% higher. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% higher. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% higher. These are all older, low-end graphics solutions, and the performance differences are within a few percentage points. In practical terms, swapping the Arc B390 for any of these would yield a similar experience: sub-60 FPS at all tested settings and resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: average 33 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 26 FPS, minimum 22, maximum 30
• High: average 19 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 19 FPS, no min/max recorded

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: average 45 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 35 FPS, minimum 30, maximum 40
• High: average 26 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 25 FPS, no min/max recorded

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: average 56 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Medium: average 43 FPS, minimum 37, maximum 50
• High: average 33 FPS, no min/max recorded
• Ultra: average 31 FPS, no min/max recorded

The pattern across resolutions is consistent. Dropping from Ultra to Low yields a predictable frame rate increase, but the curve is steep. At 4K, Low is 74% faster than Ultra (33 vs 19 FPS). At 1440p, Low is 80% faster than Ultra (45 vs 25 FPS). At 1080p, Low is 81% faster than Ultra (56 vs 31 FPS). This suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher settings, while even at Low, the system cannot reach the 60 FPS target.

The min/max data, where recorded, shows moderate frame time variance. At 1080p Medium, the spread from 37 to 50 FPS is a 13 FPS range. At 1440p Medium, the range is 10 FPS (30 to 40). At 4K Medium, the range is 8 FPS (22 to 30). The variance does not appear to worsen dramatically with resolution, but the averages are consistently too low for smooth flight simulation.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any tested resolution or preset. The verdict data for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080 all list no playable settings, confirming that every combination of resolution and quality level falls short.

The closest result is 1080p Low with an average of 56 FPS, just 4 FPS below the target. At 1440p Low, the average drops to 45 FPS, and at 4K Low, it falls to 33 FPS. Medium settings at 1080p average 43 FPS, which is playable in some less demanding genres but not for a flight simulator where smoothness is critical for situational awareness.

For users who accept lower frame rates, the system can run the game at 1080p Low with a playable-feeling experience, but the database threshold is strict: 60 FPS is the requirement, and this hardware does not meet it. The Intel Core i3-12100F has a single-thread score of 893 in 3DMark and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1674, which are decent for a quad-core part, but the Arc B390's low standing in the GPU percentile (9th percentile among all GPUs) suggests the graphics subsystem is the limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any settings?

A: No. The database records no playable settings for this combo at any resolution. The closest result is 1920x1080 Low with an average of 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best frame rate this system can achieve?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other settings/resolution combination exceeds 45 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390's average benchmark score is 1482. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1463 (1.3% lower). The GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% lower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% lower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% lower). All are within a small margin.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, while the Core i3-12100F ranks in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU's performance class is far below the CPU's.

Q: What happens when lowering settings from Ultra to Low?

A: At 1080p, the average FPS improves from 31 (Ultra) to 56 (Low), a 81% increase. At 1440p, it improves from 25 to 45, an 80% increase. At 4K, it improves from 19 to 33, a 74% increase.

Q: Does the system have enough CPU headroom for this game?

A: The Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread Alder Lake processor with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 11860, and its single-core score is 1674. These are reasonable numbers, but the game's performance is still capped by the GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 3302 out of 3714 combos. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems. Only 412 combinations perform worse.

Given that the GPU sits at the 9th percentile of all GPUs and the CPU at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, the ranking is expected. The Core i3-12100F is a capable budget processor, but the Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) with system-shared memory, which explains its low benchmark standing and the resulting frame rates.

The nearest CPU rivals (Intel Core 3 N355, Core 5 120UL, Core i5-9500, Core i7-1250U) would not change the outcome, as their average scores are within 1.1% of the i3-12100F. Similarly, swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals (GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GeForce GT 625 OEM, GeForce GT 710) would produce a negligible difference, as all are within 2.7% of the Arc B390's score.

For flight simulation enthusiasts, this combination is not suitable for the 60 FPS target. The recorded data is unambiguous: no resolution, no preset, no workaround reaches the playable threshold. Users seeking a smooth experience would need to look at hardware in a higher performance tier, as this combo's rank places it well below the median tested system.