Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-11400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this system in the bottom 11% of all recorded hardware pairings for this title, a position that reflects the GPU's limited rendering throughput rather than any deficiency in the processor. The Arc B390 sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. By comparison, the CPU is far more capable: the Core i5-11400F lands at the 71st percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 17177 across a broad suite of tests.

The disparity between component tiers shows up directly in the flight sim results. At no resolution does this combo reach the 60 FPS playability threshold, and the gap is substantial. Even at 1080p Low, the best recorded result, the average frame rate is 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS short of playable. The data indicates a system that is fundamentally GPU-bound, where the Arc B390's position near the bottom of the GPU rankings constrains everything else.

CPU and GPU Roles

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the recorded measurements reveal a heavy reliance on the graphics processor. Scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K shows consistent, predictable drops that track with pixel count rather than CPU workload. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, then to 33 FPS at 4K. That is a 21% reduction moving to 1440p and another 27% reduction moving to 4K. At Medium settings, the pattern holds: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. These are steep declines, and they point squarely at the GPU as the limiting factor.

The CPU, by contrast, shows no signs of bottlenecking. The i5-11400F's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, place it in the upper third of all processors in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 14340 and single-core score of 2024 are healthy figures for a desktop chip from the Rocket Lake generation. In a flight simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the CPU's single-core performance matters, and the data shows the i5-11400F handles that workload adequately. The frame rate collapses are attributable to the Arc B390, not the processor.

Preset scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. At 1440p, the same transitions cost 10 FPS, 9 FPS, and 1 FPS respectively. At 4K, Low to Medium costs 7 FPS, Medium to High costs 7 FPS, and High to Ultra shows no change at 19 FPS. The diminishing returns at Ultra settings across all resolutions suggest the GPU is running out of headroom long before the CPU becomes relevant.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded data shows the following averages: Low settings produce 56 FPS, Medium produces 43 FPS, High produces 33 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS. The Medium preset has the only complete min/max data at this resolution, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. That minimum is well below the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that even the smoothest preset here experiences dips that would be noticeable during complex flight scenes.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop across the board: Low delivers 45 FPS, Medium delivers 35 FPS, High delivers 26 FPS, and Ultra delivers 25 FPS. The Medium preset again has full min/max data, showing a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1 FPS, a sign that the GPU is already saturated at High and the extra Ultra effects add little measurable cost.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. The fact that High and Ultra produce identical averages suggests the Arc B390 is unable to process the additional geometry and shading work, leaving the frame rate pinned at the same low level regardless of how much further the preset is pushed.

Across all resolutions and presets, the highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low. The lowest recorded average is 19 FPS at 4K High and 4K Ultra. The complete dataset shows no instance where the minimum frame rate, where recorded, comes close to 60 FPS.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable 60 FPS at any resolution or preset, according to the recorded measurements. The verdict data lists no playable settings for 1080p, 1440p, or 4K. The best case scenario is 1080p Low, which averages 56 FPS, but that is still below the 60 FPS threshold and does not include min/max data to confirm stability.

At 1440p, the situation is worse. The highest average is 45 FPS at Low settings, and the Medium preset shows a minimum of 30 FPS, which is half the playable threshold. At 4K, even Low settings only reach 33 FPS on average, and the High and Ultra presets fall to 19 FPS.

The verdict is straightforward: this combination is not suitable for playing Microsoft Flight Simulator at a smooth frame rate. Users would need to accept significant compromises in visual quality and still fall short of the playability bar. The Arc B390, with its 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, simply does not have the throughput required for this demanding title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have nearby alternatives in the database that would behave similarly in this game, based on their benchmark scores.

For the Intel Core i5-11400F, the nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7H12, which scores 17120 against the i5's 17177, a delta of 0.3%, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U, which scores 17074, a delta of 0.6%. On the other side, the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17239, a delta of -0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 17278, a delta of -0.6%. All four of these processors are within a fraction of a percent of the i5-11400F's average benchmark score, meaning any of them would produce nearly identical CPU-side performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The differences are negligible in practice, so swapping in any of these chips would not change the frame rate outcomes recorded here.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest rivals are older, lower-tier NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, a delta of 1.3% above the Arc B390's 1482. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, a delta of 1.5%. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, a delta of 2.5%, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, a delta of 2.7%. These GPUs are all within a few percentage points of the Arc B390 in the Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, which suggests they would deliver similar frame rates in this flight simulator. The GT 710, in particular, is a well-known low-end part, and the data indicates the Arc B390 sits in that same performance class.

The practical takeaway is that any of these GPU alternatives would produce the same sub-60 FPS results at all resolutions. The system's performance ceiling is defined by the graphics card tier, and all of these options occupy the same low tier.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the 60 FPS playability threshold, there are no settings at any resolution that achieve the required frame rate. The verdict data confirms this: for each resolution, the list of playable settings is empty, and no best settings are recorded.

At 1920x1080, the closest option is Low, which averages 56 FPS. That is the highest average in the entire dataset, but it still misses the threshold by 4 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS, so it is not a viable alternative for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 26 and 25 FPS respectively. None of these approaches the playable mark.

At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS, and High and Ultra both average 19 FPS. The gap between the best and worst presets at 4K is only 14 FPS, which illustrates how little headroom the GPU has at this resolution.

For users who must play on this hardware, the only recommendation that comes close to the target is 1080p Low, but the data does not qualify it as playable. The 56 FPS average is tantalizingly close, yet the absence of min/max data for that preset means there is no confirmation that frame dips would not push it further below the threshold. Every other option sits further from the mark, and the system as configured is not capable of delivering a smooth Microsoft Flight Simulator experience at any resolution tested.