Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F paired with the Intel Arc B570 occupies the 2988th position out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the lower-middle region of all recorded configurations, meaning roughly one in five tested systems performs worse, while the vast majority deliver higher frame rates. The percentile data reinforces this: the CPU sits at the 68th percentile against all processors, and the GPU at the 65th percentile against all graphics cards, so neither component is a standout in absolute terms. For a flight simulator that stresses both the processor and the graphics pipeline heavily, this mid-pack positioning suggests the system will handle modest settings but will struggle at higher visual quality or larger resolutions.

The recorded benchmark data indicates that this combination is not among the top performers, but it is also far from the bottom of the pile. The rank of 2988 out of 3714 means that about 80 percent of tested combos outperform it, yet the remaining 20 percent fall behind. This is a useful context for anyone evaluating whether this hardware can deliver a smooth experience. The CPU’s average benchmark score of 14185 places it within 0.6 percent of several rivals, and the GPU’s average score of 20556 sits within 0.5 percent of its nearest competitors, meaning the combo’s ranking is not driven by an unusually weak or strong part, but rather by the demanding nature of Microsoft Flight Simulator itself.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy single-thread and multi-thread CPU usage, but the measured data reveals how the balance shifts across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 86 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this combo. Dropping to Medium at the same resolution yields 67 FPS, and High drops further to 50 FPS. This pattern suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is not the sole limiting factor; the CPU’s six cores and twelve threads, running at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz, are sufficient to push frame rates high when the graphical load is light. However, as settings increase, the GPU begins to take on more responsibility, and the frame rate falls in near-linear steps: from 86 FPS at Low, to 67 at Medium, to 50 at High, and finally to 48 at Ultra. The small gap between High and Ultra (only 2 FPS) indicates that at 1080p, the CPU is still heavily engaged, and the GPU has enough headroom to handle most presets without being the primary bottleneck.

At 2560x1440, the scaling changes. Low settings produce 69 FPS, Medium drops to 54, High to 41, and Ultra to 39. The difference between Low and Medium is 15 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS again. This suggests that at 1440p, the GPU starts to become more influential, especially when moving from Low to Medium, where the increased pixel count and shading load begin to tax the Arc B570’s 2304 shading units and 80 ROPs. The GPU’s memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s and 10 GB of GDDR6 memory are sufficient for 1440p, but the rendering load at High and Ultra clearly exceeds what the card can deliver at 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant factor. Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium 40, High 30, and Ultra 28. The frame rate drops are more pronounced between Low and Medium (11 FPS) and Medium and High (10 FPS), while High to Ultra only loses 2 FPS. This pattern indicates that 4K resolution is almost entirely GPU-bound, with the CPU’s role diminishing to secondary importance. The Arc B570’s 160-bit memory bus and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are likely the limiting factors at this resolution, as the pixel fill rate of 200.0 GPixel/s is spread across over eight million pixels. The data clearly shows that for 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck, while at 1080p, the CPU and GPU share the load more evenly.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the highest average frame rate recorded is 86 FPS at Low settings. Medium settings produce 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 and a maximum of 77, which is a narrow range indicating stable performance. High settings average 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS, with no min or max values recorded for those presets. The difference between Medium and High is 17 FPS, which is a significant step, suggesting that High settings introduce a substantial increase in rendering complexity, likely from more detailed terrain textures and lighting effects. The jump from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS, meaning that Ultra’s additional effects (such as higher shadow resolution or more volumetric clouds) cost relatively little performance at 1080p.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 69 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold with a comfortable margin. Medium settings drop to 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 and a maximum of 62. This wide range of 16 FPS between minimum and maximum suggests that the scene complexity varies greatly, and dips below 60 FPS are common. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 15 FPS, which is larger than the equivalent step at 1080p (19 FPS from Low to Medium, but the absolute values are lower). This indicates that at 1440p, the GPU is working harder, and each incremental preset raises the load enough to cause noticeable frame rate drops.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46, High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. The Medium preset at 4K shows a 12 FPS spread between min and max, which is similar to the 1440p Medium spread of 16 FPS, but the absolute values are lower. The gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, and between Medium and High is 10 FPS, while High to Ultra only loses 2 FPS. This pattern suggests that the 4K rendering pipeline is saturated, and beyond High settings, the GPU cannot extract additional performance from reduced quality settings in a meaningful way. The recorded data shows no min or max values for Low, High, and Ultra at 4K, so the Medium preset provides the only visibility into frame time variance at that resolution.

The Verdict

According to the database’s verdict by resolution, this system cannot maintain 60 FPS at 3840x2160 at any preset. The best recorded average at 4K is 51 FPS at Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium averages 40 FPS, High 30, and Ultra 28, all of which are well below the target. For users with a 4K display, this combination would require significant compromises, and even then, the experience would not be smooth.

At 2560x1440, the system clears 60 FPS only at Low settings, where it averages 69 FPS. The database lists Low as the only playable setting at this resolution, with a best average of 69 FPS. Medium falls to 54 FPS, High to 41, and Ultra to 39, so none of those presets meet the threshold. This means that at 1440p, the user can run the game at Low settings for a fluid experience, but any increase in visual quality will result in frame rates below 60.

At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at both Low and Medium settings. Low averages 86 FPS, and Medium averages 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 and a maximum of 77. The database identifies Medium as the best playable setting at 1080p, with an average of 67 FPS. High and Ultra average 50 and 48 FPS respectively, so they are not playable per the 60 FPS threshold. For most users on a 1080p monitor, Medium settings offer the best balance between visual quality and performance, while Low provides a large headroom at 86 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-10400F, the database shows that the Intel Xeon 6756E has an average score of 14163, which is 0.2 percent lower than the i5-10400F’s 14185. The Intel Core 7 160UL scores 14232, which is 0.3 percent higher. The AMD EPYC 7552 scores 14115, 0.5 percent lower, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C scores 14277, 0.6 percent higher. These differences are all within one percent, meaning that in CPU-bound scenarios, swapping the i5-10400F for any of these processors would result in nearly identical frame rates. The Ryzen 3 7320C, despite being a lower-tier part in other contexts, shows a very similar average benchmark score, so it would behave almost the same in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals to the Intel Arc B570 include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, which scores 20534, just 0.1 percent lower than the B570’s 20556. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, 0.1 percent higher, so it is effectively a twin in performance. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, 0.4 percent lower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, 0.5 percent higher. All of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game, so if the Arc B570 is unavailable, any of these alternatives would offer a similar experience.

When considering the combo as a whole, the CPU and GPU rivals imply that a user could swap either component for a near-identical performer without changing the measured FPS in any meaningful way. The data does not list any full-combo alternatives, but the component-level deltas are so small that the overall ranking would remain essentially the same.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on a 1080p monitor?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080, the system averages 86 FPS at Low settings and 67 FPS at Medium settings. The Medium preset is the most demanding that stays at or above 60 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where more than one preset clears 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, only Low settings reach 69 FPS, and at 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. So 1080p is the recommended resolution.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to the Intel Arc A750?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, while the Arc A750 scores 20582, which is 0.1 percent higher. In practice, the two GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more important at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the GPU is the limiting factor. The frame rates drop from 51 FPS at Low to 40 FPS at Medium, 30 FPS at High, and 28 FPS at Ultra. These drops are primarily due to the GPU’s rendering load, as the CPU has enough headroom to keep up at that resolution.

Q: What is the lowest playable setting at 1440p?

A: Low settings at 2560x1440 average 69 FPS, which is the only preset at that resolution that clears the 60 FPS threshold. Medium drops to 54 FPS, High to 41, and Ultra to 39.

Q: Does the system have a stable frame rate at 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the recorded minimum is 57 FPS and the maximum is 77 FPS. This 20 FPS spread indicates some variability, but the average of 67 FPS means most of the time the game will run above 60 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, which delivers an average of 67 FPS. The recorded minimum of 57 FPS means occasional dips below 60 are possible, but the average remains above the threshold. Low settings provide a higher average of 86 FPS, but Medium is the highest quality that still meets the 60 FPS criterion.

At 2560x1440, only Low settings clear 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. This is the sole playable preset at this resolution. Medium falls to 54 FPS, which is below the threshold, so users must accept Low quality to maintain smooth performance.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best recorded average is 51 FPS at Low settings, which is still below the playable threshold. The database lists no playable settings at 4K, so users with a 4K display would need to lower the resolution to 1440p or 1080p to achieve a playable experience.