Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 8% of all recorded configurations, a position that reflects the GPU's limited 3D capabilities more than the CPU's standing. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with its single recorded benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. For context, the nearest GPU rivals are all legacy ATI and AMD parts from over a decade ago, including the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster). The gap between this combo and the playable threshold is substantial, as no resolution tested reaches 60 FPS even at the lowest settings.

The CPU, meanwhile, performs far better relatively. The i5-10400F sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14185. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% slower), Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3% faster), AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% slower), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6% faster). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the i5-10400F's processing power is essentially indistinguishable from those enterprise and mobile parts in synthetic workloads. The bottleneck is clearly the graphics side, as the data shows a pattern of frame rates that align with the GPU's low percentile ranking.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals that the Arc B370 is the dominant constraint at every resolution and preset. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo produces 50 FPS average, while dropping to Medium yields 39 FPS, High yields 30 FPS, and Ultra yields 28 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 22% reduction, from Medium to High is a 23% reduction, and from High to Ultra is a 7% reduction. These drops are consistent with a GPU that runs out of shading power quickly as scene complexity rises. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, are not the limiting factor here, as even the single-threaded benchmark scores (688 in 3DMark single-thread, 609 in Cinebench R20 single-core) indicate sufficient headroom for flight simulation's CPU demands.

Raising resolution from 1080p to 1440p further exposes the GPU's weakness. At Low settings, the average drops from 50 to 41 FPS, a 18% decline. At Medium, it goes from 39 to 32 FPS, a 18% decline. At High, 30 to 24 FPS, a 20% decline. At Ultra, 28 to 23 FPS, a 18% decline. Moving from 1440p to 2160p shows similar proportional losses: Low goes from 41 to 30 FPS (27% drop), Medium from 32 to 23 FPS (28% drop), High from 24 to 18 FPS (25% drop), and Ultra from 23 to 17 FPS (26% drop). The consistent degradation across resolutions indicates that the GPU's fill rate and pixel throughput are the limiting factors, rather than any single resolution-specific bottleneck. The Arc B370's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for the rendering demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with playable performance?

A: No, not at the 60 FPS threshold. The best result at 1080p is 50 FPS average on Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS playable mark. Medium, High, and Ultra produce 39, 30, and 28 FPS respectively, all below the threshold.

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo achieves in any configuration?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 40 FPS, and it still does not reach the 60 FPS playable standard.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is nearly identical to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster). It is slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% faster for the rival). These are all legacy parts, indicating the Arc B370's performance class is far below modern gaming GPUs.

Q: Does the CPU hold back the GPU in any scenario?

A: The data does not indicate CPU limitation. The i5-10400F ranks at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, and its frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings changes. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would remain flat across resolution changes, but instead it drops consistently as resolution increases, which points to GPU-bound performance.

Q: Is there any resolution or setting where the combo reaches 60 FPS?

A: No. The verdict data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Every configuration tested falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-10400F's average benchmark score is 14185, with rivals all within 0.6%: Intel Xeon 6756E (14163), Intel Core 7 160UL (14232), AMD EPYC 7552 (14115), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277). The differences are negligible, so swapping to those CPUs would not meaningfully change game performance.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU side, the Arc B370's nearest rivals in the database are all older ATI/AMD parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, just 0.2% higher, making it functionally equivalent. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% higher) and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% higher) are also within the same performance envelope. The AMD FirePro M2000 (1168) trails by 1.4%, meaning it would deliver slightly lower frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Any of these GPUs would produce similar results to the Arc B370: sub-60 FPS at all settings and resolutions, with the same pattern of 50 FPS at 1080p Low being the best case.

On the CPU side, the i5-10400F's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% lower), which would behave virtually identically in this game. The Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3% higher) and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6% higher) offer slightly more processing headroom, but given that the GPU is the limiting factor, these differences would not manifest in measurable FPS gains. The AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% lower) is equally capable for this workload. Since the bottleneck is the Arc B370's low shading throughput, swapping the CPU for any of these rivals would leave frame rates essentially unchanged. Users seeking better performance would need to look at substantially stronger GPUs, not alternative CPUs in this performance class.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist. The best average is 30 FPS on Low settings, which falls far below the threshold. No setting at this resolution is playable.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. The maximum average is 41 FPS on Low settings, still 19 FPS short of the 60 FPS mark. Medium produces 32 FPS, High 24 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS, all unplayable.

At 1920x1080, the best result is 50 FPS on Low settings. This is the only configuration that comes within 10 FPS of the playable threshold, but it does not clear it. Medium yields 39 FPS, High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. The recorded data shows no settings combination at any resolution that meets the 60 FPS standard.

The Verdict

The verdict data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable frame rate. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The 60 FPS threshold is never reached, even at the lowest preset and the smallest resolution. The closest result is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS below the mark. At 1440p, the best is 41 FPS, and at 4K, the best is 30 FPS. Every other configuration produces lower frame rates, with the worst being 17 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Users who insist on this hardware should plan for a playable experience only if they accept frame rates in the 30-50 range and are willing to run at 1080p with the lowest settings. For any serious flight simulation, the Arc B370's performance class, as evidenced by its 5th percentile GPU ranking and its equivalence to 2010-era ATI parts, is inadequate. The CPU is not the problem; the data shows the i5-10400F is a capable processor at the 68th percentile. The GPU is the limiting factor, and no settings adjustment will cross the 60 FPS line.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded frame rates are as follows. Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings produce an average of 18 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 17 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, showing that even the largest settings change does not push the GPU into a usable range.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver an average of 41 FPS. Medium settings deliver an average of 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings deliver an average of 24 FPS. Ultra settings deliver an average of 23 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS, and even the lowest setting remains 19 FPS below the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver an average of 50 FPS. Medium settings deliver an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings deliver an average of 30 FPS. Ultra settings deliver an average of 28 FPS. The minimum and maximum values are only recorded for Medium presets in the database, so those provide the only frame time variance data available. The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: the Arc B370's limited pixel rate and texture rate cap performance well below what Microsoft Flight Simulator requires for smooth play. The i5-10400F, with its 12 threads and 4.30 GHz boost, has ample headroom that goes unused because the GPU cannot translate that processing power into higher frame rates.