Microsoft Flight Simulator

This analysis examines the Intel Core i5-13400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 for running Microsoft Flight Simulator, based entirely on measured benchmark data. The combination holds a specific position within a large field of tested hardware, and the performance profile varies significantly across resolutions and quality presets. The data reveals a system that is capable of smooth gameplay at standard resolutions with adjusted settings, but which struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2821 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 24% of all tested hardware pairings, indicating that while this system is functional, it is not positioned among the higher-performing configurations for this specific flight simulator. The rank reflects the demanding nature of the game, which combines heavy CPU simulation logic with intensive GPU rendering.

The percentile placement warrants context. The CPU itself, the Intel Core i5-13400F, sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs in general benchmark suites, suggesting it has solid processing power. The GPU, the Intel Arc B580, sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs. Despite both components being above average in their respective categories, the combined ranking in this game drops considerably. This discrepancy highlights that Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a unique workload that does not scale perfectly with traditional synthetic benchmark scores. The game’s complex scenery streaming and physics calculations likely create bottlenecks that are not fully captured by standard CPU and GPU tests.

The rank also suggests that many other combinations of hardware deliver better frame rates. The gap between this combo’s position and the top performers is substantial. For a game that relies heavily on both processor and graphics card, the mid-range positioning of both the i5-13400F and the Arc B580 results in a pairing that is adequate for entry-level 1080p and 1440p play but is outclassed by more powerful components. The data shows that this is a build for users willing to adjust settings, not one that will run the game at maximum fidelity without compromise.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals a clear shift in which component dominates performance as resolution and settings change. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves 96.5 FPS. This high frame rate indicates that the CPU (Intel Core i5-13400F) is capable of feeding the GPU (Intel Arc B580) enough data to maintain a smooth experience. The CPU’s 10 cores and 16 threads, along with its high single-thread performance (evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 1996), are sufficient to handle the simulation’s logic at this lower graphical load.

As resolution increases to 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, the average FPS drops. At 4K with Low settings, the average is 55.6 FPS, and at High settings it falls to 34.2 FPS. This progressive decline with resolution is a classic sign of the GPU becoming the primary bottleneck. The Arc B580, with its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 2560 shading units, is being pushed harder to render more pixels. The data shows that the GPU’s workload scales with resolution, while the CPU’s workload remains relatively constant. The gap between 1080p Low (96.5 FPS) and 4K Low (55.6 FPS) is a direct consequence of the GPU’s rendering limits, not the CPU’s processing speed.

The settings presets also demonstrate the GPU’s influence. Moving from Low to Ultra at 1080p drops the frame rate from 96.5 FPS to 55.0 FPS. This is a 41.5 FPS reduction, driven entirely by the increased graphical complexity. At 1440p, the drop is from 76.9 FPS (Low) to 41.0 FPS (Ultra). The scaling is consistent: the GPU is the limiting factor when higher presets are selected. The CPU, in contrast, appears to handle the game’s simulation overhead without becoming a limiting factor at any of the tested settings, as evidenced by the fact that frame rates never bottom out to a CPU-bound level like 30 FPS even at the highest settings.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, at 1080p, the combo achieves over 60 FPS on Low (96.5 FPS) and Medium (74.3 FPS) settings. It falls just short at High (57.6 FPS) and Ultra (55.0 FPS).

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the system maintains an average of 60.7 FPS on Medium quality. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Low settings run faster at 76.9 FPS, but High (48.0 FPS) and Ultra (41.0 FPS) do not meet the target.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: No, the data shows that this combination does not achieve 60 FPS at 3840x2160 on any settings preset. The best result is 55.6 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold. Other settings are lower, with Ultra producing only 29.3 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU’s benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B580’s average benchmark score is 23021. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, has an average score of 23061, making the Intel card 0.2% slower. It is also 0.6% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 and 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance stack up against its competition?

A: The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292. The closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, scores 25284, a difference of 0%. It is 0.3% slower than both the Intel Core 5 120 and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D, and 0.4% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H.

Q: What is the most demanding setting that stays above 60 FPS at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 is the highest quality setting that maintains a playable frame rate, averaging 74.3 FPS. This gives a significant performance buffer over the 60 FPS threshold.

The Verdict

The data indicates that this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with clear limitations based on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system is capable of a smooth experience, with the Medium preset delivering 74.3 FPS and Low delivering 96.5 FPS. This makes 1080p the most comfortable resolution for this hardware. At 2560x1440, the system remains playable but requires more compromise. The Medium preset is the highest that clears the 60 FPS threshold, hitting 60.7 FPS exactly. The Low preset runs at 76.9 FPS, but High and Ultra fall below 60 FPS.

For users with a 4K display, the verdict is not favorable. The system fails to reach 60 FPS at 3840x2160 on any settings preset. The best possible average is 55.6 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold. All other presets produce significantly lower frame rates, with Ultra at 29.3 FPS. The data suggests that this combination does not have enough GPU horsepower for 4K gaming in this title. The system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, where it can provide a stable frame rate with graphical settings adjusted to Medium.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following data presents the exact average frame rates for every tested configuration. Minimum and maximum FPS values were not recorded for any setting.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Ultra: 29.3 FPS average
• High: 34.2 FPS average
• Medium: 46.8 FPS average
• Low: 55.6 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Ultra: 41.0 FPS average
• High: 48.0 FPS average
• Medium: 60.7 FPS average
• Low: 76.9 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Ultra: 55.0 FPS average
• High: 57.6 FPS average
• Medium: 74.3 FPS average
• Low: 96.5 FPS average

The progression across resolutions shows a consistent penalty for each step up in quality. At 1080p, the gap between Low and Ultra is 41.5 FPS. At 1440p, the same gap is 35.9 FPS. At 4K, the gap narrows to 26.3 FPS, but the absolute numbers are much lower, suggesting the GPU is saturated even at Low settings. The lack of min/max data means that frame time consistency cannot be assessed, but the average scores provide a clear picture of overall performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that maintains an average frame rate at or above the 60 FPS playable threshold is identified.

• 1920x1080: The Medium preset is the best choice, delivering an average of 74.3 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS target, allowing for a detailed visual experience without sacrificing smoothness. While Low runs faster, Medium offers a better balance of visual fidelity and performance.

• 2560x1440: The Medium preset is again the optimal setting, achieving an average of 60.7 FPS. This narrowly clears the playable threshold. It is the only preset at this resolution that meets the target, as High and Ultra both fall below 50 FPS.

• 3840x2160: There is no playable preset at this resolution. The data shows that no settings combination reaches the 60 FPS target. The best average is 55.6 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold. Users attempting 4K will need to lower their expectations or consider different hardware.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals for both components provides context for what similar hardware would behave like. The Intel Core i5-13400F has an average benchmark score of 25292. Its closest rivals, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (score 25284) and AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (score 25201), are virtually identical in performance, differing by 0% and 0.4% respectively. The Intel Core 5 120 and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D score slightly higher, with the i5-13400F being 0.3% slower than both. In gaming, this means a system with any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with differences of less than one FPS.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B580 has an average benchmark score of 23021. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP, scores 23061, making the Arc B580 0.2% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172, which is 0.7% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, which is 0.6% lower. These deltas are extremely small, suggesting that swapping the Arc B580 for any of these cards would result in a negligible change in in-game performance. A user with an RTX 2080 or RTX 3080 would see very similar FPS numbers at the same settings and resolutions. The data indicates that the performance envelope of this combo is tightly clustered with these alternatives, and any of them would offer a comparable experience in this flight simulator.