Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B570 combination delivers a playable experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only when expectations are tuned to the right resolution and settings. At 1080p, the combo manages a comfortable 67 FPS average on Medium settings, while 1440p users will need to drop to Low for smooth performance. At 4K, no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold, making that resolution impractical for this pairing. The data indicates a system that is clearly capable for mainstream flight simulation, but not one that can push maximum visual fidelity at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings presets, providing a clear picture of how the Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B570 handle Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080, the pair produces an average of 86 FPS on Low settings, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all configurations. Moving up to Medium settings at 1080p, the average drops to 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. High settings at 1080p yield 50 FPS on average, while Ultra settings fall to 48 FPS. These numbers show a steep performance cliff between Medium and High, suggesting that the GPU’s memory bandwidth or shading capacity becomes a limiting factor beyond Medium.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts noticeably. Low settings produce an average of 69 FPS, which is the only preset at this resolution that clears the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium settings at 1440p average 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. High settings drop to 41 FPS, and Ultra settings manage only 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 15 FPS, which is larger than the 19 FPS gap between Low and Medium at 1080p, indicating that resolution scaling is not linear for this game.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly below the playability threshold. Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium settings average 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS, High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 23 FPS, which suggests that the CPU or driver overhead is constraining performance more than the GPU at this resolution. Notably, the minimum FPS data is only provided for Medium settings at each resolution, so frame-time consistency at other presets remains unclear from the dataset.

Best Settings per Resolution

The playable threshold for this analysis is 60 FPS, and the verdict data explicitly identifies which settings meet that criterion. At 1920x1080, the best playable preset is Medium, which delivers an average of 67 FPS. This is the most demanding setting at 1080p that stays above 60 FPS, and it offers a meaningful visual upgrade over Low while maintaining a 10 FPS margin above the threshold. The minimum FPS of 57 at Medium does dip below 60, so users sensitive to frame drops may prefer Low, which averages 86 FPS with no reported minimum.

At 2560x1440, the only playable setting is Low, with an average of 69 FPS. Medium at 1440p falls to 54 FPS, which is 6 FPS below the threshold. While 54 FPS is arguably close enough for a flight simulator where precise timing is less critical than in a competitive shooter, the data-driven verdict classifies it as not playable. The best settings designation for 1440p is therefore Low, and users should expect to sacrifice most visual enhancements to maintain smoothness.

At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. The best average FPS at 4K is 51 on Low, which is 9 FPS below the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all score below 40 FPS, making 4K impractical for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows that 1440p Low is the highest resolution with a playable frame rate, and 1080p Medium is the highest quality preset that remains playable. For users who prioritize visuals over frame rate, 1080p High at 50 FPS or 1440p Medium at 54 FPS are options, but they do not meet the defined playability standard.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results reveal how the Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B570 divide responsibilities across resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU’s role is more pronounced. The i5-13400F has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22604 places it in the 77th percentile among all CPUs. In a flight simulator that models complex physics and AI traffic, this processor provides sufficient single-thread performance, as indicated by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3191. The fact that 1080p Low produces 86 FPS while 1080p Ultra produces 48 FPS suggests that the GPU becomes the bottleneck as settings increase, but the CPU still drives the baseline frame rate.

At 1440p, the scaling between Low and Medium shows a 15 FPS drop, while the drop from Medium to High is 13 FPS. This pattern indicates that the GPU is increasingly responsible for frame rate as resolution rises. The Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s. For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams large texture sets and terrain data, this bandwidth is adequate but not generous. The GPU’s PassMark G3D score of 14195 places it in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, which is lower than the CPU’s percentile ranking. This imbalance suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint at higher resolutions.

At 4K, the situation shifts again. The difference between Low (51 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) is only 23 FPS, which is proportionally smaller than the 38 FPS gap at 1080p. This compression of frame rates at 4K indicates that the CPU is now the limiting factor. The i5-13400F’s 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 80 KB L1 cache per core are sufficient for many workloads, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s draw call overhead at 4K resolution can saturate even a capable 10-core processor. The data shows that at 4K, lowering settings from Medium to Low only gains 11 FPS, which is far less than the 19 FPS gain seen at 1080p. This suggests that at 4K, the CPU cannot feed the GPU fast enough to benefit from reduced graphical load.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-13400F provide context for CPU performance. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS has an average benchmark score of 25284, which is essentially identical to the i5-13400F’s 25292, with a deltaPct of 0%. This means that in synthetic benchmarks, these two processors are interchangeable. The Intel Core 5 120 scores 25362, which is 0.3% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25365, also 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800H scores 25201, which is 0.4% lower. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same GPU, assuming similar memory configurations.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B570’s nearest rivals are more varied. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, which is 0.1% lower than the Arc B570’s 20556. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, which is 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, which is 0.4% lower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, which is 0.5% higher. These deltas are all within 0.5%, meaning that any of these GPUs would deliver essentially the same experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. However, it is worth remembering the RTX 3070 Mobile and Quadro M4000M are mobile parts, so their desktop equivalents may perform differently in practice, but the benchmark data treats them as comparable.

When considering the combo as a whole, users with a Ryzen 5 5600X3D or Ryzen 7 6800H could expect similar results to the i5-13400F, provided they pair it with a GPU in the Arc A750 or RTX 3070 Mobile class. The 0.3% to 0.4% deltaPct differences are within measurement noise for real-world gaming. The practical takeaway is that this performance tier is well-populated, and there is no single standout alternative that would dramatically improve frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1080p Medium settings, the combo averages 67 FPS, which is above the 60 FPS threshold. At Low settings, it averages 86 FPS. High and Ultra settings fall below 60 FPS, averaging 50 FPS and 48 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best resolution to play this game with this hardware?

A: The best playable resolution is 2560x1440 on Low settings, which averages 69 FPS. At 1920x1080, Medium settings provide 67 FPS, but 1440p Low offers a higher resolution with a similar frame rate. 4K is not playable at any setting, with the best average being 51 FPS on Low.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU matter more for this game?

A: At 1080p, the CPU is more influential, as the i5-13400F’s single-thread performance of 3191 in Cinebench R23 drives the baseline frame rate. At 1440p, the GPU becomes more important, and at 4K, the CPU becomes the bottleneck again, as evidenced by the small frame rate gains from lowering settings at that resolution.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to other GPUs in this performance class?

A: The Arc B570’s average benchmark score of 20556 is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534), Intel Arc A750 (20582), NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662). All of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this combo?

A: No, the data shows that no preset at 3840x2160 reaches 60 FPS. The best result is 51 FPS on Low settings, with Medium at 40 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. Users seeking 4K would need significantly more powerful hardware.

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the average FPS is 54, with a minimum of 46 and a maximum of 62. This is below the 60 FPS playability threshold, but the average is close enough that some users may find it acceptable depending on their tolerance for frame dips.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 20 percent of all configurations, which is a sobering statistic given that the individual components rank in the 77th percentile (CPU) and 65th percentile (GPU) relative to their peers. The discrepancy between component percentile and combo rank suggests that this game is particularly demanding on the complete system, and that the pairing of this specific CPU and GPU does not synergize as well as either part might with other hardware.

The combo rank of 2988 out of 3714 means that roughly 80 percent of tested combinations deliver better performance in this game. This is not surprising given the game’s reputation as a hardware stress test, but it does highlight that this system is better suited for less demanding titles or for users who are willing to accept lower settings. The fact that the combo achieves playable frame rates at 1080p Medium and 1440p Low is a positive sign, but the lack of any playable 4K preset and the relatively low overall rank indicate that this is a mid-range solution for flight simulation enthusiasts who prioritize frame rate over maximum visual fidelity. For those who insist on high settings at higher resolutions, the data clearly shows that this combo will require compromises.