Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12600KF paired with the Intel Arc B390 is a severely constrained combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The benchmark data shows that this system fails to reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at every tested resolution and preset. The Arc B390, which ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database, acts as a decisive bottleneck, limiting the powerful CPU from demonstrating its full potential. At best, the combo achieves 56 FPS average at 1080p Low settings, which is still below the playable threshold.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database shows no resolution or settings combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the best performance this combo achieves?

A: The best measured result is 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 Low settings. The next best is 45 FPS at 2560x1440 Low settings, followed by 43 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium.

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

A: The Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% faster).

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-12600KF a capable processor for this game?

A: The CPU itself is strong, ranking in the 79th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 27799. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900K (0.3% slower) and AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D (0.3% slower), indicating solid processing power that is not the limiting factor here.

Q: What happens to performance when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: Performance drops significantly as resolution increases. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 56 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p and 33 at 4K. At High settings, it falls from 33 at 1080p to 26 at 1440p and 19 at 4K.

Q: Which component is holding back performance in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Arc B390's 9th percentile ranking and its proximity to much older, entry-level GPUs like the GeForce GT 710 show that it lacks the rendering power needed for a demanding flight simulator, despite the CPU's high ranking.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of components ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested system configurations, a poor result that reflects the extreme imbalance between the two components. The CPU is a high-end performer in its own right, but the GPU's performance is so low that it drags the entire system into the lower quartile of results. The data shows a system where the processor is capable of much more, but the graphics solution cannot deliver the frame rates that the CPU could potentially support.

The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's position in the overall database. With a percentile rank of 9, the Arc B390 is among the weakest graphics processors tested, and its benchmark score of 1482 is only marginally better than legacy mobile parts. This GPU performance class is simply not suited for a graphically intensive title like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which explains why the combo ranks so poorly despite the CPU's strength.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates show a consistent pattern across all resolutions and settings: the system struggles to maintain smooth gameplay, and the gap between the best and worst settings is substantial.

At 1920x1080, the best case scenario is the Low preset, which delivers an average of 56 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 43 FPS average, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings yield 33 FPS average, and Ultra drops further to 31 FPS average. None of these results reach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the Low preset average is close to the edge of playability for many users.

At 2560x1440, performance declines further. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is a noticeable step down from 1080p. Medium averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The data shows that this resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay at any setting.

At 3840x2160, the results are poor across the board. Low settings average only 33 FPS. Medium averages 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30 FPS. Both High and Ultra settings average just 19 FPS. This resolution is effectively unplayable with this hardware.

The scaling between settings is consistent: moving from Low to Ultra typically costs roughly 40-45% of the frame rate at each resolution. For example, at 1080p the drop from Low (56 FPS) to Ultra (31 FPS) is a 45% reduction. At 1440p, the drop from Low (45 FPS) to Ultra (25 FPS) is a 44% reduction. At 4K, the drop from Low (33 FPS) to Ultra (19 FPS) is a 42% reduction. This consistent scaling suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at every setting level.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i5-12600KF, the database lists several CPUs with nearly identical average benchmark scores. The Intel Core i9-10900K scores 27872, which is 0.3% lower than the 12600KF's 27799. The AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE scores 27712, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800U scores 27887, 0.3% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D scores 27896, also 0.3% lower. These processors would all behave nearly identically in this game when paired with the same GPU, meaning the overall system performance would not change meaningfully.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest rivals are all much older, lower-end NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% faster than the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% faster. These GPUs are all from a much older generation and are considered entry-level or legacy parts. The fact that the Arc B390 sits in this performance class explains why the measured FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator is so low.

Users looking for similar overall performance would need to pair any of those equivalent CPUs with any of those equivalent GPUs, and the results in this game would be nearly the same. The data clearly shows that this GPU class is the limiting factor, regardless of which of these CPUs is used.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data makes it clear that the GPU is the dominant constraint in this system for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Evidence comes from the resolution scaling. When moving from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 56 to 33, a 41% reduction. This steep decline with increasing resolution is a classic sign of GPU limitation, as the CPU workload does not scale as dramatically with pixel count.

The CPU's strength is evident from its benchmark scores. The Intel Core i5-12600KF scores 23391 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3302 in single-core, placing it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, a highly regarded gaming processor, and the Intel Core i9-10900K. This level of CPU performance is more than adequate for a flight simulator, which does rely on single-thread performance for simulation logic.

The GPU, in contrast, is severely underpowered. The Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 places it at the 9th percentile, and its nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 710 and GT 520MX, parts that are not designed for modern gaming at high resolutions. The 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 compute rate and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply not enough for the complex rendering demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The result is that at all three tested resolutions, the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is waiting on the GPU to finish rendering frames, which is why the frame rates are so low even at 1080p Low settings. Upgrading the GPU would yield significant performance gains, while upgrading the CPU would provide almost no benefit in this specific configuration.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The database verdict lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS target.

At 3840x2160, the system is not viable. The best result is 33 FPS average at Low settings, and Ultra settings drop to 19 FPS. This resolution is far outside the capability of this hardware.

At 2560x1440, the system is also not viable. The best result is 45 FPS average at Low settings, with Medium at 35 FPS and Ultra at 25 FPS. None of these come close to the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the system remains below the playable threshold. The Low preset delivers 56 FPS average, which is the closest result to 60 FPS but still short. Medium delivers 43 FPS, High delivers 33 FPS, and Ultra delivers 31 FPS. While the Low preset might be tolerable for some users who accept frame rates below 60, it does not meet the defined playable standard.

The data indicates that the Intel Arc B390 is fundamentally mismatched for this game. It ranks in the 9th percentile of GPUs and performs at a level comparable to the GeForce GT 710, a part from a completely different era. The Intel Core i5-12600KF is a capable processor, but no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for a GPU that cannot render the frames fast enough. Users seeking to play Microsoft Flight Simulator would need a significantly more powerful graphics solution to achieve smooth, playable frame rates at any resolution.