Microsoft Flight Simulator

Intel Core i5-12400 with Intel Arc B390 presents a deeply constrained pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator, according to the recorded data. The GPU sits at the 9th percentile among all tested graphics cards, with an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the company of legacy mobile and OEM parts. The CPU is far more capable, ranking at the 72nd percentile among all processors, but the graphics subsystem becomes the dominant bottleneck across every resolution and preset tested. The measured frame rates confirm that this combination cannot reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution, even at the lowest settings. The verdict is unambiguous: the recorded data shows no playable settings exist for this game at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-12400's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its computational standing. The AMD EPYC 7643 scores 18697, a mere 0.1% higher than the i5-12400's 18683 average benchmark score, making them effectively equivalent in aggregate CPU performance. The Intel Core i7-1355U trails by 0.3% with a score of 18730, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 sits 0.7% ahead at 18811. On the other side, the Intel Core i3-14100F scores 18519, which is 0.9% behind the i5-12400. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that any of these processors would behave nearly identically as the CPU component in this pairing. For a simulation like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for flight model and scenery processing, the i5-12400's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2257 and Passmark single-thread score of 3456 represent its capability, but the GPU will still cap overall output.

The Intel Arc B390's nearest rivals paint a stark picture of its performance tier. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% below the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M is 1.5% behind at 1460, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM trails by 2.5% with a score of 1446. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 sits 2.7% behind at 1443. These are all legacy, low-end graphics solutions from previous generations, and the Arc B390's position among them indicates its compute capabilities are closer to those parts than to any modern gaming GPU. The Arc B390 does support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 shows that feature support does not translate into competitive rasterization performance. Anyone considering this GPU for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect a similar experience to systems equipped with those older NVIDIA parts, which is to say, a marginal one.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a lopsided relationship between the CPU and GPU in this configuration. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average frame rate is 56 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS threshold but still below it. When the resolution increases to 2560x1440 at Low, the average drops to 45 FPS, a decline of 11 FPS or roughly 19.6%. At 3840x2160 with Low, the average falls further to 33 FPS, another 12 FPS drop. This scaling pattern indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor: as pixel count rises, the Arc B390's fill rate and shading throughput cannot keep pace. The GPU's pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, but those figures are insufficient for a demanding flight simulator at higher resolutions.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work to do. At 1920x1080 Low, the 56 FPS average is still below 60, and the gap between that result and the 33 FPS at 4K Low shows that even at 1080p, the GPU is not fully saturating the CPU's potential. The i5-12400's multi-threaded scores are strong: Cinebench R23 multicore at 15989 and 3DMark 16-thread at 5873. Yet the frame rates never exceed 56 FPS, so the GPU is the binding constraint in every scenario. The Medium preset results support this: at 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 43 FPS with minimum 37 and maximum 50, while at 2560x1440 Medium it drops to 35 FPS with minimum 30 and maximum 40. The incremental cost of each resolution step is consistent, and the GPU's shared memory architecture (system shared, with system dependent bandwidth) further limits performance when dealing with large texture sets in a flight simulator.

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data shows that no preset at any resolution achieves an average frame rate of 60 FPS or higher. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS in the database, and the verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The closest result is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which reaches an average of 56 FPS. That is 4 FPS short of the threshold, so even the least demanding configuration fails to meet the playability criterion. At 2560x1440 Low, the average is 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it is 33 FPS. For Medium settings, the averages are 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. High settings produce 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings are the worst, with 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K.

Because the database records no playable settings, there is no "best settings" recommendation that meets the 60 FPS requirement. The closest option, 1080p Low at 56 FPS, is still below the threshold. Users who accept sub-60 FPS performance could consider 1080p Low as the most fluid option, but the database does not classify it as playable. The data also shows that the minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings: 37 at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and 22 at 4K. These minimums indicate that even the average frame rates hide occasional dips, and at 1440p Medium the minimum touches 30 FPS, which is half the playable threshold. For anyone seeking a consistent 60 FPS experience, this hardware combination cannot deliver it at any resolution or preset.

FAQ

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

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average frame rate is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best frame rate this combination can achieve?

A: The best recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, it falls to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it drops to 33 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% lower), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% lower).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this configuration?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates decline consistently as resolution increases, from 56 FPS at 1080p Low to 33 FPS at 4K Low, and the CPU's benchmark scores are far above the GPU's tier, indicating the graphics card cannot keep up.

Q: What happens to frame rates when moving from Low to Medium settings at 1920x1080?

A: The average drops from 56 FPS at Low to 43 FPS at Medium, a reduction of 13 FPS. The minimum at Medium is 37 FPS and the maximum is 50 FPS, showing that even Medium settings push the GPU into inconsistent territory.

Q: Does the Arc B390 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 indicates that API support does not compensate for limited hardware performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database records average frame rates for all four settings presets at three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the averages are 19 FPS for High, 33 FPS for Low, 26 FPS for Medium, and 19 FPS for Ultra. Only the Medium preset includes minimum and maximum values, recorded as 22 and 30 FPS respectively. At 2560x1440, High averages 26 FPS, Low averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution has a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. At 1920x1080, High averages 33 FPS, Low averages 56 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The Medium preset records a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low settings provide the highest average, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra slightly below High. The differences between Low and Ultra are substantial. At 1080p, Low is 56 FPS while Ultra is 31 FPS, a 25 FPS gap. At 1440p, the gap is 20 FPS (45 versus 25), and at 4K, it is 14 FPS (33 versus 19). The minimum frame rates, where recorded, show that the Medium preset at 1080p can dip to 37 FPS, which is still below the 60 FPS threshold. The maximums at Medium are 50 FPS at 1080p, 40 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K, meaning even the best-case spikes never reach 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400 and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 11th percentile of all configurations. This low rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits at the 9th percentile among all graphics cards. The CPU's 72nd percentile standing does little to boost the overall position, as the game's frame rates are consistently GPU-bound. The combo rank of 3302 means that roughly 89% of tested hardware combinations deliver better performance in this specific title.

The rank reflects the measured FPS data: no resolution or preset reaches 60 FPS, and the best average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low. Many other combinations in the database likely achieve playable frame rates at 1080p or higher, while this one cannot. The GPU's nearest rivals, all legacy NVIDIA parts, would likely produce similar results, reinforcing the notion that this combo is closer to entry-level or integrated graphics territory than to a gaming-capable system. The CPU's strong multi-threading scores (Cinebench R23 multicore 15989, Passmark multithread 18747) are irrelevant when the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize them.

The Verdict

The recorded data is clear: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The closest attempt is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 56 FPS, but that is still 4 FPS short of the threshold. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 33 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra presets produce even lower averages, ranging from 19 FPS at 4K Ultra to 43 FPS at 1080p Medium.

The Intel Core i5-12400 is a capable processor, as its benchmark scores and 72nd percentile ranking suggest, but the Intel Arc B390's 9th percentile GPU standing is the decisive factor. The GPU's shared memory architecture and low compute throughput (FP32 at 7.680 TFLOPS) cannot handle Microsoft Flight Simulator's demands. Users seeking a playable experience with this CPU would need a significantly more powerful graphics card, as the data shows the CPU has headroom that the GPU cannot exploit. In its current configuration, this system is not viable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any settings above the 60 FPS threshold.