Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of an Intel Core i5-13400F with an Intel Arc B390 represents a highly unbalanced pairing for this specific workload. The recorded data shows that this system consistently fails to reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or settings level. The CPU is a capable modern desktop processor, but the integrated-class graphics solution severely bottlenecks the entire experience, resulting in frame rates that are only suitable for static viewing or low-fidelity slideshows, not interactive flight.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Intel Core i5-13400F in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25292. Its nearest rivals in terms of overall processing power include the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, which scores 25284, a 0% difference. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D both score 25362 and 25365 respectively, each showing a delta of -0.3% relative to the i5-13400F. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25201, which is 0.4% higher than the i5-13400F. For the CPU side of this build, these processors would behave nearly identically in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning any of them would still leave the system constrained by the graphics adapter. The i5-13400F itself offers 10 cores and 16 threads with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, so its processing headroom is not the limiting factor here.

The GPU tells a very different story. The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1482 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or entry-level discrete parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. What this means in practical terms is that the Arc B390 is performing in the same class as graphics solutions that are over a decade old. Any system built around this GPU, regardless of the CPU paired with it, will deliver comparable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU can be swapped for any of its nearest rivals without changing the outcome; the GPU remains the definitive bottleneck.

Best Settings per Resolution

The measured frame rates for this configuration are consistently below the 60 FPS target. At 3840x2160, the best recorded average is 33 FPS at Low settings. The Medium preset drops to 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. High and Ultra both produce an average of 19 FPS. No settings combination at this resolution comes anywhere close to the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves only marginally. Low settings yield an average of 45 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this resolution. Medium produces 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. Even the best case at 1440p, Low settings at 45 FPS, remains 15 FPS below the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the best recorded result is 56 FPS on Low settings. This is the closest the system comes to playability, but it still falls short. Medium averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. None of these presets at any resolution achieve the 60 FPS average required for a smooth experience. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for this configuration; every single measured average is below 60 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear pattern where the GPU is the dominant constraint at every resolution. The Arc B390 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz and a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s, but its overall compute throughput is only 7.680 TFLOPS. This is simply insufficient for a simulation that renders vast landscapes, detailed aircraft, and dynamic weather. The CPU, by contrast, scores 22604 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3191 in single-core, indicating it has ample processing power for the game's simulation logic.

Looking at the scaling between resolutions, the frame rate drops are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. At Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 (56 FPS) to 2560x1440 (45 FPS) represents a 19.6% decrease in performance. Moving further to 3840x2160 (33 FPS) represents a 26.7% decrease from 1440p. This scaling is directly tied to the number of pixels being rendered, which is the classic signature of a graphics-limited system. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain roughly constant across resolutions, as the simulation workload does not change with pixel count.

The difference between Low and Ultra presets also points to GPU limitation. At 1080p, Low runs at 56 FPS while Ultra runs at 31 FPS, a 44.6% reduction in performance when enabling higher fidelity effects. These effects, such as shadows, reflections, and volumetric clouds, are primarily processed by the GPU. The CPU's role in this configuration is secondary; it provides enough headroom that it never becomes the limiting factor, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's lack of throughput. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU constraint becomes even more pronounced, with High and Ultra presets falling into the mid-20s or below.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable frame rate by the database's standard of 60 FPS. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, no best settings, and no average FPS at best. The situation is identical at 2560x1440, with no playable settings recorded. At 1920x1080, the result is the same: no playable settings, no best settings, and no average FPS at best.

The highest recorded frame rate for this entire configuration is 56 FPS at 1080p Low settings, which is 4 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. Every other combination of resolution and preset scores lower. The system ranks 3302 out of 3714 combinations for this game, placing it in the bottom 11% of tested hardware configurations. This is a machine that can launch the game and render frames, but it cannot deliver a smooth, interactive flight experience. Users would encounter constant stuttering and a lack of responsiveness, particularly when flying over dense urban areas or during weather events that increase the rendering load.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The full set of measured results is as follows. At 3840x2160 with High settings, the average FPS is 19. At Low settings, the average is 33. At Medium settings, the average is 26, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. At Ultra settings, the average is 19. At 2560x1440 with High settings, the average is 26. At Low settings, the average is 45. At Medium settings, the average is 35, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. At Ultra settings, the average is 25. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average is 33. At Low settings, the average is 56. At Medium settings, the average is 43, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. At Ultra settings, the average is 31.

These numbers reveal a few additional insights. The gap between Low and Medium is fairly consistent across resolutions. At 1080p, the drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS. At 1440p, it is 10 FPS. At 4K, it is 7 FPS. The gap between Medium and High is also consistent: 10 FPS at 1080p, 9 FPS at 1440p, and 7 FPS at 4K. The difference between High and Ultra is much smaller: 2 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 0 FPS at 4K. This suggests that the Ultra preset at 4K is hitting a hard computational ceiling, where the GPU is fully saturated and additional settings changes produce no measurable frame rate difference. The min and max values recorded for Medium settings also show that frame pacing is unstable. At 1080p Medium, the range is 37 to 50 FPS, a 13 FPS swing. At 1440p Medium, the range is 30 to 40 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 22 to 30 FPS. This instability would be noticeable during gameplay, with sudden hitches during complex scenes.

FAQ

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

A: No. The best result at 1920x1080 is 56 FPS average on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. All other presets at this resolution average between 31 and 43 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this configuration at 1440p?

A: The best measured average at 2560x1440 is 45 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. None of these meet the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are 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 Intel Core i5-13400F the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The i5-13400F scores in the 77th percentile of all CPUs and has nearest rivals within 0.4% of its average score. The frame rate scaling across resolutions indicates the GPU is the limiting factor, as performance drops significantly with increased pixel count.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 4K with Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the average FPS is 26, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. This is far below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest frame rate recorded for this entire configuration?

A: The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is 4 FPS short of the 60 FPS target, and no other settings combination exceeds this value.