Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 lands at rank 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this system in the bottom 8 percent of all recorded configurations, a position that reflects a severe performance deficit for a simulator known for its demanding rendering workload. The combo rank is driven almost entirely by the graphics side: the Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the i5-11400F sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs. This is a lopsided pairing where the processor has plenty of headroom, but the integrated-class graphics solution cannot translate that into playable frame rates.

The recorded frame rates confirm the ranking. At 3840x2160, the best average across any preset is 30 FPS on Low, which is exactly half of the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the best average is 41 FPS on Low, still well short of the target. At 1920x1080, the best average is 50 FPS on Low, which is the closest this combo gets to playable, but it still misses the mark. No resolution, at any preset, clears the 60 FPS line. The verdict data is unambiguous: there are no playable settings at any of the three tested resolutions.

The ranking position becomes more meaningful when compared to the overall pool. Being 3428th out of 3714 means roughly 286 combinations performed worse, but the vast majority of tested systems, over 92 percent of them, delivered better results. For a flight simulator that demands sustained frame rates for smooth camera panning and instrument readability, this level of performance puts the combo firmly in the "not recommended" category for anyone targeting the standard 60 FPS playability bar.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU separately helps contextualize where this hardware sits in the broader performance landscape. The Intel Core i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17177 across all tests in the database, placing it within a fraction of a percent of several very different processors. The AMD EPYC 7H12 scores 17120, a delta of just 0.3 percent, meaning the two are effectively identical in aggregate compute performance despite their totally different market positions. The Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, 0.4 percent higher, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, 0.6 percent higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U trails by 0.6 percent at 17074. What this tells us is that the i5-11400F is a middle-of-the-pack processor in raw throughput, competitive with both older server silicon and newer mobile parts, and it is not the bottleneck in this pairing.

The GPU side is a different story entirely. The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of just 1184, and its nearest rivals are all legacy discrete parts from over a decade ago. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2 percent higher, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5 percent higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7 percent higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 trails at 1168, 1.4 percent lower. This places the Arc B370 in the company of early-2010s entry-level graphics hardware, which explains why Microsoft Flight Simulator, a game released in 2020 with demanding terrain streaming and weather rendering, struggles so badly. Anyone considering this combo should expect behavior similar to those older parts: playable at very low resolutions and settings in lighter titles, but overwhelmed by modern simulation workloads.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear imbalance between the two components in this game. The i5-11400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, a 2.60 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock, plus 12 MB of shared L3 cache, is a competent processor for gaming. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and single-core score of 2024 indicate solid modern performance. But the Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution, part of the Panther Lake generation with Xe3-LPG architecture, sharing system memory and drawing just 25 W. Its 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs are paired with a 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost clock, and the memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, which in practice means it competes for bandwidth with the CPU.

The scaling between resolutions shows how much the GPU is the limiting factor. Moving from 1920x1080 Low at 50 FPS to 2560x1440 Low at 41 FPS is an 18 percent drop, and then to 3840x2160 Low at 30 FPS is another 27 percent drop. The pattern repeats across all presets. At Medium settings, the frame rates go from 39 FPS at 1080p, to 32 FPS at 1440p, to 23 FPS at 4K. This is classic GPU-bound scaling: as pixel count rises, performance falls proportionally, and the CPU has no chance to compensate because the render pipeline is saturated by the graphics workload. The CPU side is essentially idle relative to its potential, while the GPU is maxed out and still cannot deliver acceptable numbers.

The preset scaling reinforces this. At 1920x1080, dropping from Ultra at 28 FPS to Low at 50 FPS is a 79 percent improvement, which is a large swing that indicates the graphics hardware is the primary constraint. At 3840x2160, the swing from Ultra at 17 FPS to Low at 30 FPS is a 76 percent improvement, showing that even at the highest resolution, settings adjustments help proportionally. A CPU-bound scenario would show much smaller frame rate differences between presets, since reducing graphics quality would not relieve a processor bottleneck. The measured data points squarely at the GPU as the decisive component for this game.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Based on the recorded measurements, the answer is no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings at any resolution. At 3840x2160, the best achievable average is 30 FPS on Low settings, which is 30 FPS short of the target. At 2560x1440, the best is 41 FPS on Low, 19 FPS short. At 1920x1080, the best is 50 FPS on Low, 10 FPS short. Even the most favorable configuration, 1080p with the lowest quality preset, does not reach the playable bar.

The practical implication is that this combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator if smooth performance is required. The game is playable in the sense that it will run, and at 1080p Low it will be reasonably responsive for basic flight, but the frame rate will remain below the standard threshold. For users who can tolerate frame rates in the 40s and 50s, the 1080p Low preset is the only viable option, and even that will dip during dense scenery or weather events, though the recorded data does not include min FPS values for the Low preset at 1080p to confirm the severity of those dips. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a 39 FPS average with a recorded minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS, which gives a sense of the variability. At 1440p and 4K, all presets fall far below acceptable levels.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low settings produce 50 FPS, Medium produces 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45, High produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS, a 79 percent difference, which gives users a meaningful trade-off between visual quality and smoothness, though even the best case falls short of 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop across the board: Low produces 41 FPS, Medium produces 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36, High produces 24 FPS, and Ultra produces 23 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 18 to 20 percent of the frame rate at each preset, consistent with a GPU that is already operating near its limits.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest: Low produces 30 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27, High produces 18 FPS, and Ultra produces 17 FPS. The 4K Medium preset, with its recorded minimum of 20 FPS, shows that even moderately demanding settings can push this combo into single-digit territory during heavy moments, though the average stays in the low 20s.

The overall pattern is linear and predictable. Each resolution step up costs roughly a quarter to a third of the frame rate, and each preset step up costs a smaller but consistent amount. The only preset with full min/max data at every resolution is Medium, which allows for the most precise comparison: 39/33/45 at 1080p, 32/27/36 at 1440p, and 23/20/27 at 4K. These numbers give a reliable sense of the frame time consistency, and they show that the combo is not just slow, but also variable, with the gap between minimum and maximum reaching about 30 percent of the average in some cases.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B370 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at any resolution. The best average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best preset to use at 1080p with this combo?

A: Low settings at 1920x1080 delivers the highest average at 50 FPS. Medium settings drop to 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS, while High and Ultra produce 30 FPS and 28 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184 and sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-11400F a bottleneck for this game?

A: No. The CPU sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 17177, and its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7H12, scores 17120 for a 0.3 percent difference. The frame rate scaling between resolutions and presets indicates the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. None of these approach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. At 3840x2160, Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The Medium preset has a recorded minimum of 20 FPS, indicating frequent dips below the already low average.