Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i5-14400F sits in a tightly contested performance band. Its average benchmark score of 32,279 places it within 0.5% of several nearby processors. The closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, which scores 32,233, a delta of just 0.1% ahead of the i5-14400F. The Intel Core i9-11900 trails by 0.2% with a score of 32,226, while the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS is 0.2% behind at 32,354. The Intel Core i7-12800H completes the group, scoring 32,121, which is 0.5% lower. In practical terms, swapping between these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the processing headroom is statistically indistinguishable.

The graphics side tells a different story. The Intel Arc B370, with an average benchmark score of 1,184, sits at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-power parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1,186, a 0.2% margin. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192, 0.7% above, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1,168, 1.4% lower. The data indicates this GPU is operating in a performance class far below what modern flight simulation typically demands. Users migrating from those older ATI or AMD parts would see similar behavior in this title, though the Arc B370 supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which those older parts do not.

For this specific combo, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The i5-14400F's 83rd percentile ranking among all CPUs means it has ample compute for the simulation's physics and flight model. The GPU, however, is the constraining factor. Any of the four rival GPUs listed would produce comparable frame rates, meaning the Arc B370's performance ceiling is what users should focus on when evaluating this pairing.

How This Combo Ranks

Among 3,714 tested CPU and GPU combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks 3,428th. That places the combo in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a position driven almost entirely by the GPU's low standing. The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking does little to lift the overall result because the game's rendering workload saturates the graphics hardware first.

The rank is consistent with the measured frame rates. A combo rank this low typically corresponds to average FPS figures in the teens or twenties at common resolutions, which is exactly what the data shows. The i5-14400F is not the limiting factor; the same CPU paired with a stronger GPU would rank substantially higher. Conversely, the Arc B370 would drag down even a top-tier processor to a similar position in this database. The takeaway is clear: the ranking reflects the GPU's modest capabilities, and users should not infer CPU weakness from this overall position.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the most commonly used resolution, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, though no minimum or maximum values were recorded. Medium settings average 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings drop to 30 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 28 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers decline further. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 36, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS, showing that the GPU loses significant headroom as settings climb.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal. Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS with a range of 20 to 27, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, and between Medium and High is 5 FPS, indicating a steep scaling curve as the render resolution stresses the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: the Arc B370 cannot maintain 60 FPS at any measured setting, and even 30 FPS only appears at the lowest settings and resolutions. The minimum FPS values, where recorded, show dips of 5 to 6 FPS below the average, which would be noticeable as stutter during dense scenery or weather transitions.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with Medium settings?

A: No. Medium settings at 1920x1080 average 39 FPS, which is 21 FPS below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The minimum recorded frame rate is 33 FPS.

Q: What resolution and settings come closest to 60 FPS?

A: The highest average FPS recorded for this combo is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No tested configuration reaches 60 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The i5-14400F scores 32,279 on average, which is within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32,233), Intel Core i9-11900 (32,226), AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32,354), and Intel Core i7-12800H (32,121). These differences are negligible for gaming.

Q: Is the GPU or CPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU. The Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile. The frame rates scale strongly with resolution and settings, which is typical of GPU-bound workloads.

Q: What is the best average FPS at 2560x1440?

A: Low settings produce the best result at that resolution, averaging 41 FPS. Medium settings average 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

Q: Are there any settings at 3840x2160 that reach 30 FPS?

A: Low settings average 30 FPS at 3840x2160. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the i5-14400F and the Arc B370 is evident from the scaling behavior. At 1920x1080, dropping from High to Low settings increases the average FPS from 30 to 50, a 67% improvement. At 2560x1440, the same settings change raises FPS from 24 to 41, a 71% gain. At 3840x2160, Low yields 30 FPS versus High's 18, a 67% improvement. This consistent percentage gain across resolutions indicates the GPU is the primary constraint; the CPU has enough headroom to feed the graphics card even at the lowest settings.

The resolution scaling reinforces this. At Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 drops FPS from 50 to 41, a reduction of 18%. Moving further to 3840x2160 drops it to 30, another 27% reduction. At High settings, the same resolution steps go from 30 to 24 to 18 FPS, a 40% total drop. The GPU's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are being saturated as pixel count rises.

The CPU's single-core and multi-core performance, measured at 3,055 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 21,645 in multi-core, is sufficient for the simulation's flight model and scenery loading. The absence of frame rate collapse at low settings suggests the CPU is not stalling the pipeline. The i5-14400F's 10 cores and 16 threads provide ample parallelism for the game's background tasks, while its 4.70 GHz boost clock handles the main simulation thread. In short, the GPU dictates performance at every resolution, and the CPU sits idle relative to its capacity.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The best recorded average is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is half of the playability target. Medium settings average 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. Users at this resolution must accept sub-30 FPS gameplay or lower the resolution.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. Low settings average 41 FPS, which is the highest recorded value at this resolution, but still 19 FPS short of 60. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. No preset qualifies as playable by the 60 FPS standard.

At 1920x1080, Low settings average 50 FPS, the best result in the entire dataset. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The 50 FPS figure is the closest this combo comes to the threshold, but it remains 10 FPS below. The data shows no configuration in the measured set that maintains 60 FPS or higher.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playability threshold at any resolution or settings preset included in the measurements. The verdict by resolution is unanimous: 3840x2160 has no playable settings, 2560x1440 has no playable settings, and 1920x1080 has no playable settings. The best-case scenario is 1920x1080 with Low settings, producing an average of 50 FPS, which is playable in the sense of being above 30 FPS but falls short of the stated target.

The bottleneck is unambiguous. The Intel Core i5-14400F is a capable processor, ranking in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, but the Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of GPUs. The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 20 ROPs cannot keep pace with the game's rendering demands. Users seeking a smooth experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator would need a substantially more powerful graphics solution; the CPU alone is not the limiting factor and would pair well with a higher-tier GPU in this title. As configured, this combo is best suited for lower-resolution or lower-fidelity flight simulation, with the understanding that 60 FPS is out of reach.