Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for this combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and Intel Arc B370 shows a consistent pattern across all three tested resolutions: no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold. The database defines playable performance at 60 FPS, and every measured average falls short of that mark.

At 3840x2160, the strongest result comes from the Low preset, which produces an average of 30 FPS. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, High drops to 18 FPS, and Ultra sits at 17 FPS. None of these settings can be recommended as playable, but Low is the only option that even approaches half the target frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly but remains below the threshold. Low settings deliver an average of 41 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and the next step up is substantial, suggesting the GPU is the limiting factor when settings increase.

At 1920x1080, the best available average is 50 FPS on Low settings. Medium follows at 39 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and lowest settings, the system misses the 60 FPS target by 10 FPS. This indicates that the Arc B370, with its 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs, simply does not have enough rendering headroom for this flight simulator.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any setting?

A: No. The verdict data lists no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average FPS recorded is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best performing settings preset at 1920x1080?

A: Low settings produce the highest average FPS at 1920x1080, with a recorded average of 50 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to other tested graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 1184 on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its closest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, which scores 1186 and is 0.2% faster, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190 and is 0.5% faster.

Q: Does increasing resolution from 1080p to 1440p have a large impact?

A: Yes. At Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 drops the average FPS from 50 to 41, a loss of 9 FPS. At Medium settings, the drop is from 39 to 32 FPS. At High settings, the drop is from 30 to 24 FPS. At Ultra, the drop is from 28 to 23 FPS.

Q: What is the worst performing preset in the measured data?

A: Ultra settings at 3840x2160 produce the lowest average FPS at 17 FPS. High settings at 3840x2160 are close behind at 18 FPS. The 4K Ultra configuration also has no recorded minimum or maximum values in the database.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the performance shortfall?

A: The GPU appears to be the primary constraint. The Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the Core i5-12400 ranks in the 72nd percentile among all CPUs. The GPU's nearest rivals are legacy cards from the HD 5000 and HD 7000 series, indicating it is far below modern gaming performance levels.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains measured frame rate data for twelve combinations of resolution and settings. Minimum and maximum values were only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution; all other presets have only average FPS values.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS with no min or max recorded. Medium averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High averages 18 FPS with no min or max. Ultra averages 17 FPS with no min or max. The spread between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, showing that settings have a moderate impact at 4K but that even the lowest settings cannot reach playable levels.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS with no min or max. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High averages 24 FPS with no min or max. Ultra averages 23 FPS with no min or max. The Medium preset's frame time variance is relatively tight, with a 9 FPS range between minimum and maximum.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS with no min or max. Medium averages 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High averages 30 FPS with no min or max. Ultra averages 28 FPS with no min or max. The Medium range of 12 FPS is the widest recorded among all Medium presets, suggesting some scene complexity variation during flight.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is always significantly faster than Medium, but the gap between High and Ultra is small. At 2560x1440, High and Ultra differ by only 1 FPS. At 1920x1080, they differ by 2 FPS. This suggests diminishing returns in visual quality cost at the upper end of the settings range, likely due to the GPU being saturated regardless of the specific preset.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-12400 in the database's CPU rankings provide context for its processing capability. The AMD EPYC 7643 has an average score of 18697, which is 0.1% lower than the i5-12400's 18683. The Intel Core i7-1355U scores 18730, 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 scores 18811, 0.7% higher. The Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, 0.9% lower. These deltas are all within 1% of the i5-12400, indicating that the CPU's performance is comparable to a broad range of processors from different generations and market segments.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are considerably older hardware. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These comparisons place the Arc B370's performance in the same class as discrete GPUs from roughly a decade and a half earlier, which explains why Microsoft Flight Simulator proves unplayable at the 60 FPS threshold.

A system pairing the i5-12400 with any of these rival GPUs would likely produce similar results in this game. The CPU has sufficient headroom, as evidenced by its 72nd percentile ranking, but the GPU's 5th percentile ranking creates a hard ceiling on frame rates. Users considering upgrades should focus on the graphics component rather than the processor.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates by the database's standard. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the verdict data shows no playable settings at any resolution.

At 3840x2160, the best available average is 30 FPS on Low settings. The verdict lists no playable settings for this resolution. At 2560x1440, the best available average is 41 FPS on Low settings, again with no playable settings listed. At 1920x1080, the best available average is 50 FPS on Low settings, and the verdict also lists no playable settings for this resolution.

The closest approach to the threshold is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS short of the target. Every other configuration falls further behind. The data clearly indicates that the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor, as even the least demanding settings preset at the lowest resolution cannot reach the 60 FPS mark. Users seeking a playable experience with this game would need to consider a different GPU or significantly reduce expectations for visual quality and resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe performance deficit, as the CPU alone would rank much higher based on its 72nd percentile score among all processors.

The low ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data. A system that cannot reach 60 FPS at any settings preset at any resolution will naturally fall near the bottom of a ranking ordered by playability. The fact that 286 combinations rank below this one suggests some systems perform even worse, but the practical outcome remains the same: this is not a playable configuration for this title.

The gap between the CPU's relative strength and the GPU's weakness creates an imbalanced system. The i5-12400's benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15989 and a single-core score of 2257, show a capable processor. The Arc B370's single 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 reveals the bottleneck.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data suggests that the GPU plays the dominant role in determining performance for this game at all tested resolutions. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its similarity to legacy ATI cards from the HD 5000 series indicate a fundamental lack of rendering throughput. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 72nd percentile and shows no signs of being the limiting factor.

The scaling between resolutions supports this conclusion. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1920x1080 to 41 at 2560x1440 to 30 at 3840x2160. This represents a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The pattern is similar at other presets. If the CPU were the bottleneck, resolution changes would have a smaller impact on frame rates, since the CPU workload does not scale linearly with pixel count.

The settings scaling also points to GPU limitation. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average FPS from 50 to 28, a 44% drop. At 2560x1440, the same settings change drops the average from 41 to 23, a 44% drop. At 3840x2160, Low to Ultra drops from 30 to 17, a 43% drop. The consistency of this reduction across resolutions indicates that the GPU is saturated at every settings level.

The CPU's role becomes more relevant only in the sense that it is not the constraint. The i5-12400's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, provide adequate processing power for the simulation's computational load. The database's CPU benchmarks, including a PassMark multi-thread score of 18747 and a single-thread score of 3456, confirm solid performance. However, no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for a GPU that ranks below 95% of all tested graphics cards.

For users analyzing this combination, the conclusion is straightforward: the Arc B370's integrated-class performance, with its 25 W TDP and system-shared memory, is not suited for a demanding flight simulator at high frame rates. The i5-12400 is not the issue, and upgrading the CPU alone would not improve the measured FPS. The GPU must be the focus of any potential remedy.