Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Arc B370 shows a consistent pattern: no settings preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold. The database defines 60 FPS as the playable threshold, and this combo falls short across the board.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that comes closest to playable is Low, which delivers an average of 30 FPS. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS with minimums of 20 and maximums of 27. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. None of these clear the 60 FPS bar, and the Low preset at 30 FPS is the only one that reaches half the target. The gap between the best result at this resolution and playability is substantial, indicating that this hardware combination cannot adequately drive the simulator at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the strongest showing is again the Low preset, averaging 41 FPS. Medium improves to 32 FPS on average with minimums of 27 and maximums of 36. High drops to 24 FPS, and Ultra falls to 23 FPS. The Low preset is the closest to the playable threshold across all resolutions, but it still sits 19 FPS below the 60 FPS target. The data suggests that even the least demanding settings at 1440p are insufficient for smooth flight simulation.

At 1920x1080, the best result is the Low preset at 50 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS with minimums of 33 and maximums of 45. High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The Low preset at 1080p is the single highest average FPS recorded for this combo, but it still misses the 60 FPS threshold by 10 FPS. Since no preset at any resolution achieves 60 FPS, the best settings per resolution are technically the Low preset at each tier, with the caveat that none are playable by the database standard.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this pairing in the bottom portion of the database, roughly in the 8th percentile of all tested configurations. The CPU alone sits in the 73rd percentile among all processors in the database, while the GPU sits in the 5th percentile among all graphics cards. The stark contrast between the CPU's respectable standing and the GPU's very low standing explains the overall ranking.

This rank of 3428 out of 3714 means that 286 tested combos perform worse, but the overwhelming majority of configurations outperform this pairing. The data implies that the Arc B370 is the limiting factor. The CPU is a mid-pack performer, capable of feeding a much stronger graphics card, but the GPU's low percentile ranking drags the entire combo down. In a flight simulator, which is known to be demanding on both processor and graphics hardware, this combination cannot leverage the CPU's relative strength because the GPU becomes the bottleneck early in the settings curve.

The ranking also reflects the game's demanding nature. Microsoft Flight Simulator renders vast landscapes, complex weather, and detailed aircraft models, all of which stress the graphics pipeline heavily. The Arc B370's performance class, as indicated by its 5th percentile ranking, is simply not sufficient for this title at acceptable frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a full picture across three resolutions and four settings tiers.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum. Medium averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 13 FPS, showing that even dropping to the least demanding settings only recovers a modest amount of performance at 4K. The minimum and maximum values for Medium show a tight range, suggesting that the frame rate is consistently low rather than fluctuating wildly.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 36, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 9 FPS on average, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 8 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is negligible at just 1 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds visual features that this hardware cannot render without significant cost, but the cost is already so high that the difference is minimal.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. This resolution shows the largest jump between Low and Medium at 11 FPS, and the smallest between High and Ultra at 2 FPS. The 1080p Low result of 50 FPS is the closest the combo comes to the 60 FPS threshold, but it still falls short.

Comparing across resolutions, dropping from 1440p Low to 1080p Low gains 9 FPS, while dropping from 4K Low to 1440p Low gains 11 FPS. The scaling is consistent but modest, indicating that resolution is not the primary constraint. The GPU's raw throughput is the limiting factor, and no combination of resolution and settings can overcome it.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-12400F offer a useful reference for what other processors would behave similarly in this configuration. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS has an average benchmark score of 19047, essentially identical to the i5-12400F's 19039, with a delta of 0 percent. The Intel Core 3 201E scores 19056, a delta of -0.1 percent, meaning it is marginally slower. The Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982, a delta of 0.3 percent, indicating it is slightly faster. The AMD EPYC 7773X scores 18979, also a delta of 0.3 percent. All four rivals sit within a fraction of a percent of the i5-12400F's average score, so swapping to any of them would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in this game. The EPYC 7773X is a server-class chip, but in this benchmark context it performs on par with the desktop i5, which highlights how single-thread and multi-thread workloads in the database can converge across very different product categories.

The GPU nearest rivals paint a different picture. The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a delta of -0.2 percent, meaning it is slightly faster. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a delta of -0.5 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a delta of -0.7 percent. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, a delta of 1.4 percent. These are all older or low-end parts, and they are all within 1.4 percent of the Arc B370's performance. This confirms that the Arc B370 sits at the very bottom of the current GPU performance spectrum in the database. A system with any of these rival GPUs paired with the i5-12400F would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, all of them falling short of the 60 FPS playability threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU in this pairing. The i5-12400F ranks in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, with strong multi-threaded scores such as 12380 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 19433 in PassMark multi-thread. The Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among GPUs, with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184. The CPU is more than capable of handling flight simulation's physics, weather calculations, and aircraft systems. The GPU, however, is drastically underpowered for the visual rendering demands of this title.

The resolution scaling in the measured FPS data confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS scales from 30 at 4K to 41 at 1440p to 50 at 1080p. This scaling is roughly proportional to pixel count, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would remain flat across resolutions. The fact that they rise steadily as resolution drops indicates that the GPU's fill rate and shading throughput are the constraints.

Settings scaling tells the same story. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low gains 22 FPS, from 28 to 50. At 1440p, the same drop gains 18 FPS, from 23 to 41. At 4K, it gains 13 FPS, from 17 to 30. The gains from lowering settings shrink as resolution increases, which is typical of a GPU that is already saturated at high pixel counts. The CPU has headroom to spare, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations.

The implication for users is that upgrading the graphics card would yield substantial gains, while upgrading the processor would yield almost none in this specific game. The i5-12400F is not the constraint, and the data shows that any of its nearest rival CPUs would produce identical results because the GPU is the limiting factor in every scenario.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: No. The best recorded result is 50 FPS at 1080p Low settings, which falls 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS.

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination reaches this figure.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-12400F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047, a 0 percent delta. The Intel Core 3 201E scores 19056, a -0.1 percent delta. The Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982, a 0.3 percent delta. The AMD EPYC 7773X scores 18979, a 0.3 percent delta. All are within a fraction of a percent of the i5-12400F's 19039 average score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs. FPS scales with resolution and settings, indicating GPU-bound performance.

Q: What settings should I use at 1440p?

A: Low settings produce the best result at 41 FPS, but this is still below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. No setting at 1440p is playable.

Q: What are the closest GPU alternatives in performance?

A: The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168. All are within 1.4 percent of the Arc B370's score of 1184.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Arc B370 cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any resolution or settings preset. The database's playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 Low. The verdict by resolution confirms this: no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

The 1080p Low result of 50 FPS is the closest this combo comes to playability, but a 10 FPS shortfall is significant in a flight simulator where smooth frame rates are critical for accurate control and immersion. The 1440p Low result of 41 FPS and 4K Low result of 30 FPS are further from the threshold.

The data points to a fundamental mismatch. The i5-12400F is a capable mid-range processor with a 73rd percentile ranking, but the Arc B370 is a 5th percentile GPU that cannot keep pace with the simulator's rendering demands. Users considering this combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect a sub-60 FPS experience across the board, with only the lowest settings at 1080p approaching acceptable performance. The GPU is the clear bottleneck, and any meaningful improvement in frame rates would require a significantly stronger graphics card.