Microsoft Flight Simulator

This combo places in the 2988th position out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, putting it in the lower-mid tier of the database. The data shows this is not a high-end pairing; the CPU sits at the 68th percentile against all tested processors, while the GPU lands at the 65th percentile against all tested graphics cards. In practical terms, the system delivers playable frame rates only at specific settings and resolutions, and the simulation's demanding nature is evident from the measured results.

The benchmark data indicates that this configuration is best suited for 1080p gaming with moderate settings. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves an average of 67 FPS at Medium settings, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. Low settings at the same resolution push the average to 86 FPS, providing headroom for smoother performance. However, at 1440p, only Low settings manage to stay above 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. At 4K, no settings configuration reaches the playable threshold, with the best result being 51 FPS at Low settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 2988 out of 3714 tested combinations places it in the bottom 20% of all tested hardware pairings for this game. This ranking reflects a substantial performance gap compared to more capable systems. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all processors indicates it is a mid-range part, while the GPU's 65th percentile shows similar positioning. Together, they form a balanced but modest pairing that struggles with the most demanding settings.

The measured frame rates confirm this ranking. At 4K Ultra, the system averages just 28 FPS, which is less than half of the 60 FPS playability threshold. Even at 1440p High, the average is only 41 FPS, well below the target. The system only becomes comfortable at 1080p Medium and below, or 1440p Low. This pattern suggests the pairing is adequate for entry-level flight simulation but lacks the headroom for high-fidelity experiences at higher resolutions.

Compared to the broader database, the CPU's average benchmark score of 13494 places it near processors like the Intel Core 3 N355 and Intel Core i5-9500, with deltas of 0% and 0.3% respectively. The GPU's average benchmark score of 20556 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc A750, with deltas of 0.1% and -0.1%. These scores indicate the combo performs as expected for its class, but the game's demanding nature pushes it to its limits.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core 3 N355, Intel Core i5-9500, Intel Core 5 120UL, and Intel Core i7-1250U. The Core i3-12100F's average benchmark score of 13494 is within 1.1% of all these alternatives. The Intel Core 3 N355 scores 13492, essentially identical, while the Intel Core i5-9500 scores 13452, just 0.3% lower. The Intel Core 5 120UL scores 13594, about 0.7% higher, and the Intel Core i7-1250U scores 13351, 1.1% lower. In game performance, these CPUs would produce very similar results, with differences well within measurement noise.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B570's average score of 20556 is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (0.1% lower) and the Intel Arc A750 at 20582 (0.1% higher). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662 (0.5% higher). All four GPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in this game, meaning users with any of these alternatives would see comparable performance. The small deltas suggest that swapping to any of these parts would not meaningfully change the playability verdict.

These similar-performance alternatives reinforce the conclusion that this combo sits in a narrow performance band. Users seeking better results would need to look beyond these near-identical options, as none of them would push the system past the 60 FPS threshold at higher settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals how the workload shifts between CPU and GPU across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the system shows a clear scaling pattern: Low settings average 86 FPS, Medium drops to 67 FPS, High falls to 50 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 48 FPS. The 19 FPS drop from Low to Medium suggests the GPU is becoming a limiting factor as settings increase, while the smaller 2 FPS difference between High and Ultra indicates diminishing returns at the top end.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts. Low settings average 69 FPS, Medium averages 54 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The 15 FPS drop from Low to Medium is similar to the 1080p pattern, but the gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 2 FPS. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is more consistently the bottleneck, as the pixel count increases demand on the render pipeline.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the dominant constraint. Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The 11 FPS drop from Low to Medium, followed by a 10 FPS drop from Medium to High, shows the GPU struggling with the increased pixel workload. The CPU's role diminishes at this resolution, as the 4-core, 8-thread Alder Lake processor has enough headroom to feed the GPU's demands.

The scaling data indicates that at 1080p, both components matter, with the CPU potentially limiting performance at lower settings where frame rates are higher. At 1440p, the GPU begins to dominate, and at 4K, the GPU is almost entirely responsible for the performance ceiling. Users upgrading one component should prioritize the GPU for higher resolutions, while CPU upgrades would have the most impact at 1080p Low settings.

The Verdict

The verdict data is clear: this system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only at specific resolutions and settings. At 3840x2160, no settings configuration achieves the 60 FPS playability threshold, so the game is not playable at 4K with this hardware. At 2560x1440, only Low settings clear 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. At 1920x1080, both Low and Medium settings are playable, with averages of 86 FPS and 67 FPS respectively.

The best playable configuration is 1920x1080 at Medium settings, which delivers 67 FPS average with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. This provides a smooth experience with moderate visual quality. For users who prefer higher frame rates, 1080p Low achieves 86 FPS, offering a substantial buffer above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p, Low settings are the only option, providing 69 FPS average but with less visual fidelity.

The system cannot handle High or Ultra settings at any resolution while maintaining 60 FPS. At 1080p High, the average drops to 50 FPS, and at 1440p High, it falls to 41 FPS. Ultra settings are even more demanding, with 48 FPS at 1080p and 39 FPS at 1440p. Users seeking higher visual quality would need to accept frame rates below 60 FPS or consider more powerful hardware.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates provide a complete picture of the system's performance across all tested configurations. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver the highest average at 86 FPS, followed by Medium at 67 FPS with a range of 57 to 77 FPS. High settings average 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 38 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for higher visual quality.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 69 FPS, which is the only playable configuration at this resolution. Medium settings average 54 FPS with a range of 46 to 62 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The drop from Low to Ultra is 30 FPS, showing a narrower performance gap than at 1080p due to the increased GPU load.

At 3840x2160, the system's limitations are most apparent. Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a range of 34 to 46 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. No configuration reaches 60 FPS, and even Low settings fall 9 FPS short. The 23 FPS difference between Low and Ultra demonstrates the GPU's inability to handle 4K rendering with this game's demanding visuals.

The minimum and maximum FPS data, where available, show reasonable consistency. At 1080p Medium, the range of 57 to 77 FPS indicates a 20 FPS variance, which is typical for a flight simulator with variable scenery complexity. At 1440p Medium, the range of 46 to 62 FPS shows a 16 FPS variance, and at 4K Medium, the range of 34 to 46 FPS shows a 12 FPS variance. These ranges suggest the game's performance fluctuates based on the environment being rendered.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080, the combo achieves playable frame rates at Low and Medium settings, with averages of 86 FPS and 67 FPS respectively. High and Ultra settings fall below 60 FPS, with averages of 50 FPS and 48 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings configuration for this hardware?

A: The best playable configuration is 1920x1080 at Medium settings, which delivers 67 FPS average with a range of 57 to 77 FPS. This offers a balance between visual quality and smooth performance.

Q: Is this system capable of 1440p gaming?

A: Only at Low settings, which achieves an average of 69 FPS. Medium settings drop to 54 FPS, High to 41 FPS, and Ultra to 39 FPS, all below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: Can the system handle 4K resolution?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 51 at Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra settings average 40, 30, and 28 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F has an average benchmark score of 13494, placing it within 1.1% of the Intel Core 3 N355, Intel Core i5-9500, Intel Core 5 120UL, and Intel Core i7-1250U. These CPUs would deliver nearly identical game performance.

Q: How does the GPU compare to similar graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20556 is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, Intel Arc A750, NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, and AMD Radeon R9 M390X. All of these GPUs would produce similar frame rates in this game.