Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-12400F sits in a well-populated performance tier, according to the database's aggregate benchmark scores. Its average score of 19039 places it in the 73rd percentile among all tested CPUs. The closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which scores 19047, a negligible 0% delta. The Intel Core 3 201E trails by just 0.1% with a score of 19056, while the Intel Core i5-1335U and AMD EPYC 7773X are effectively identical, with deltas of 0.3% in either direction (scores of 18982 and 18979 respectively). This means that in CPU-bound scenarios, swapping to any of these alternatives would produce nearly indistinguishable frame pacing.

The GPU side presents a starkly different picture. The Intel Arc B390 scores just 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% ahead), the GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% ahead), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% ahead), and the GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% ahead). These deltas are small, but they all point in the same direction: the B390's raw graphics throughput is comparable to entry-level mobile and OEM parts from over a decade ago. For the purposes of this game, any of those GPUs would behave similarly, meaning all of them would struggle to maintain playable frame rates in demanding flight simulation scenarios.

The pairing creates an interesting imbalance. The CPU has substantial multi-threaded headroom (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12380, PassMark multithread score of 19433), while the GPU is a severe bottleneck in graphics-heavy workloads. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor here; the GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 24 ROPs are simply insufficient for modern flight sim rendering.

CPU and GPU Roles

At 3840x2160 resolution, the GPU dominates the performance equation. The measured averages move from 33 FPS on Low to 26 FPS on Medium to 19 FPS on High and Ultra (both at 19 FPS). This 42% drop from Low to Ultra shows that the GPU is saturated at both ends of the quality spectrum. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads, boosting to 4.40 GHz, are more than capable of feeding the GPU even at the lower resolution; the bottleneck is clearly the rendering pipeline.

The resolution scaling reveals the same conclusion. At 1920x1080 Low, the combo averages 56 FPS, which drops to 45 FPS at 2560x1440 Low (a 20% reduction) and then to 33 FPS at 3840x2160 Low (a further 27% reduction). This pattern is consistent with a GPU-limited scenario: pixel throughput scales inversely with resolution. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 19433 places it well above any threshold needed for the game's simulation logic, and its 3DMark max-thread score of 5912 confirms it can sustain high thread utilization.

Moving through presets, the gap between Low and Medium is 7 FPS at 1080p (56 to 43), 10 FPS at 1440p (45 to 35), and 7 FPS at 4K (33 to 26). The gap between Medium and High is larger: 10 FPS at 1080p (43 to 33), 9 FPS at 1440p (35 to 26), and 7 FPS at 4K (26 to 19). The game scales its loads in a way that the GPU's fill rate and texture throughput are the primary determinants. The CPU's single-thread score of 3481 in PassMark is also not a limitation, as the game's draw call processing is handled efficiently at these frame rates.

The data suggests that the CPU is essentially idle in comparison to the GPU. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS of 19 is identical to 4K High (19), which indicates the GPU has reached its limit regardless of the extra visual features. The CPU does not change its behavior across resolutions; only the GPU's pixel output changes. For those looking to improve FPS, the recorded data implies that upgrading the GPU would yield immediate gains, while the CPU has headroom to spare.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at 1920x1080 in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded at 1080p is 56 FPS on Low settings. Medium drops to 43, High to 33, and Ultra to 31. No tested combination reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 2560x1440?

A: At 1440p, Low averages 45 FPS while Ultra averages 25 FPS. That is a 20 FPS drop (44%) for the Ultra visual upgrade. Medium sits at 35 FPS, and High at 26 FPS.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-12400F bottleneck the Intel Arc B390 in this game?

A: No. The CPU's nearest rivals (AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core 3 201E) have benchmark scores within 0.3% of it, and CPU-bound tests show healthy multi-thread performance. The GPU is the clear bottleneck, as evidenced by the FPS scaling with resolution at the same preset.

Q: What are the minimum FPS figures for Medium settings?

A: The only recorded min/max ranges are for Medium: at 1080p, min is 37 and max is 50; at 1440p, min is 30 and max is 40; at 4K, min is 22 and max is 30. Low and High/Ultra have no recorded min/max values.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B390's performance comparable to any discrete desktop GPUs?

A: In the database, its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463) and GT 710 (1443). These are all below the 10th percentile of tested GPUs.

Q: What is the best the combo can do at 4K?

A: The best average FPS at 3840x2160 is 33 FPS on Low settings. Medium drops to 26, and both High and Ultra are 19 FPS. None of these reach the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database's testing for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this Intel Core i5-12400F + Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos. That places it roughly in the 11th percentile, meaning 412 combos perform worse, while 3302 perform better. The rank reflects the overall playability across all measured resolutions and settings. Given that the GPU is in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, the combo's poor position is expected.

The rank is primarily dragged down by the GPU. The CPU's 73rd percentile standing is not the issue. For reference, the CPU's nearest rivals (AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core 3 201E) would likely produce higher ranks when paired with a more capable GPU, but the data does not include those specific pairings. The rank of 2130 suggests that this combination is only suitable for the least demanding scenarios, such as 1080p Low, where it nearly hits 60 FPS (56 FPS). Everything else falls below the playable threshold.

The position in the database should be interpreted as a warning: the combination is not competitive for modern flight simulation at standard resolutions. Users seeking 60 FPS must either lower the resolution to below 1080p (not measured here) or consider that the GPU is the limiting component.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unequivocal: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset tested. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the highest average FPS recorded is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 Low, which is 4 FPS short. At 2560x1440 Low, the average is 45 FPS, and at 4K Low, it is 33 FPS.

The GPU is the limiting factor. Even at the lowest preset, the GPU cannot push enough frames. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is not the issue; it is the Intel Arc B390's 7.68 TFLOPS and 24 ROPs that fail to render the simulator's complex scenes at acceptable rates. The single recorded 3DMark score (1482) confirms the GPU is severely underpowered for this game.

For users who accept frame rates below 60, the system can display the game at all resolutions, but the experience is inconsistent. At 1080p Low, it is close to playable (56 FPS), but at Medium it drops to 43, and at High and Ultra it falls to 33 and 31 respectively. The data suggests that the game is unplayable in the conventional sense (60 FPS) across the board.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the measured FPS data, here are the most demanding presets that stay at or above 60 FPS for each resolution:

• 3840x2160: No preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is 33 FPS on Low.
• 2560x1440: No preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest average is 45 FPS on Low.
• 1920x1080: No preset reaches 60 FPS. The closest is Low with an average of 56 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Since no setting at any resolution clears 60 FPS, there is no "best" playable preset. The database's verdictByResolution field confirms this: all resolutions have an empty list of playable settings and null best settings. The highest average FPS you can achieve is 56 FPS, which is at 1920x1080 Low.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following tables list the exact measured average, minimum, and maximum FPS for each resolution and preset combination. Note that min/max values are only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: avg 33 FPS
• Medium: avg 26 FPS, min 22, max 30
• High: avg 19 FPS
• Ultra: avg 19 FPS

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: avg 45 FPS
• Medium: avg 35 FPS, min 30, max 40
• High: avg 26 FPS
• Ultra: avg 25 FPS

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: avg 56 FPS
• Medium: avg 43 FPS, min 37, max 50
• High: avg 33 FPS
• Ultra: avg 31 FPS

The data is clear: there are no frame rate figures above 60 FPS in any measurement. The closest to 60 is 1080p Low at 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS short. The Medium preset's min/max ranges show that the game can dip as low as 22 FPS (4K) or 37 FPS (1080p), indicating significant scene complexity swings. For the average user, the system is only usable at 1080p Low, and even then, it is not fully smooth by the 60 FPS standard.