Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Arc B390 combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a consistent pattern across all resolutions: none of the tested presets reach the 60 FPS threshold. The measurements cover four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) at three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160), with the most complete data available for the Medium preset, which includes minimum and maximum frame times.

At 1920x1080, the best result comes from the Low preset, which averages 56 FPS. This is the closest any configuration comes to the playable threshold, falling just 4 FPS short. The Medium preset at this resolution averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings drop the average to 33 FPS, while Ultra produces 31 FPS on average. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 25 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for higher visual fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is 11 FPS lower than the same settings at 1080p. Medium averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings produce 26 FPS on average, and Ultra drops to 25 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 20 FPS, a slightly narrower gap than at 1080p, which suggests the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as pixel count increases.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 33 FPS. Medium averages 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. Both High and Ultra presets average 19 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 14 FPS, the smallest difference of any resolution. This compression of performance across presets indicates that the GPU is heavily saturated at this resolution, leaving little headroom for settings adjustments.

The Medium preset is the only configuration with complete min/max data at all three resolutions. At 1080p, the 37 to 50 FPS range shows relatively stable frame delivery around the 43 FPS average. At 1440p, the 30 to 40 FPS range is tighter, and at 4K, the 22 to 30 FPS range shows the lowest floor. These numbers illustrate how the same settings scale with resolution, with each step up in resolution costing roughly 8 to 9 FPS on average for the Medium preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the Intel Arc B390 is the dominant performance constraint in this system for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's measured 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which is an extremely low standing. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463 average score, 1.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% ahead). These are all entry-level or legacy parts, which contextualizes the FPS results.

The CPU, by contrast, is a much stronger component. The Intel Core i5-14400F sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 32279. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (32233, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core i9-11900 (32226, 0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (32354, 0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-12800H (32121, 0.5% ahead). The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055 indicate a capable processor for simulation workloads.

The scaling between resolutions confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1080p, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, while at 1440p it drops to 45 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 33 FPS. This represents a 41% reduction from 1080p to 1440p and a further 27% reduction from 1440p to 4K. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the resolution scaling would be much flatter, as the CPU workload does not change significantly with pixel count. Instead, the steep drops with increasing resolution point directly to the GPU's limited rasterization throughput.

The settings scaling further supports this interpretation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 25 FPS (from 56 to 31), which is a 45% reduction. At 1440p, the same settings change costs 20 FPS (from 45 to 25), a 44% reduction. At 4K, the cost is 14 FPS (from 33 to 19), a 42% reduction. The proportional cost of higher settings remains similar across resolutions, but the absolute FPS values are all below playable levels, indicating that the GPU cannot keep up with the game's demands at any configuration.

The CPU's role is secondary in this pairing. With 10 cores, 16 threads, and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, the i5-14400F provides enough processing power for the simulation's physics and flight model calculations. The recorded FPS data shows no signs of CPU-induced stuttering or frame pacing issues; the min/max values for the Medium preset are relatively tight at each resolution. However, the GPU's low standing in the database (9th percentile) means that it cannot translate the CPU's capability into playable frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU side, the nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA parts with very similar 3DMark Steel Nomad scores. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX averages 1463 (1.3% ahead of the Arc B390), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M averages 1460 (1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM averages 1446 (2.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 averages 1443 (2.7% ahead). These scores are all within a 3% window of the Arc B390's 1482, meaning that swapping to any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The practical takeaway is that this level of GPU performance, regardless of brand, cannot deliver 60 FPS in this game.

On the CPU side, the nearest rivals to the i5-14400F include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U (0.1% ahead in average benchmark score), the Intel Core i9-11900 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-12800H (0.5% behind). These deltas are negligible, meaning that any of these CPUs would perform essentially the same as the i5-14400F in this game when paired with the same GPU. The bottleneck is so heavily weighted toward the GPU that CPU choice among these alternatives would not meaningfully change the FPS results.

If a user were to keep the i5-14400F and swap the GPU for one of the Arc B390's rivals, the performance would remain unchanged within measurement error. Conversely, keeping the Arc B390 and swapping the CPU for any of its rivals would also produce similar results, since the GPU is the limiting factor. The data suggests that this combo's performance is entirely dictated by the GPU's 9th percentile standing, and the CPU's 83rd percentile standing is effectively wasted in this configuration.

The Verdict

The verdict is clear from the recorded data: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution field shows no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the highest average FPS recorded across all twelve measurement points is 56 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

At 1920x1080, the best option is the Low preset at 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS short of the threshold. The Medium preset at 43 FPS, High at 33 FPS, and Ultra at 31 FPS all fall well short. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, with Medium at 35 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 33 FPS, Medium at 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra at 19 FPS.

The data indicates that this system is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator if a consistent 60 FPS experience is required. Even the lowest settings at the lowest resolution fail to reach the threshold. Users would need to accept frame rates in the 30 to 56 range depending on settings and resolution, or consider a different GPU entirely. The CPU is not the issue, but the GPU's performance ceiling is simply too low for this demanding flight simulator.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 56, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Does this system reach 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The verdictByResolution data shows no playable settings at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, or 3840x2160, with all average FPS values below the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% behind the GeForce 800M, 2.5% behind the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% behind the GeForce GT 710.

Q: What is the FPS range for the Medium preset at 2560x1440?

A: The Medium preset at 2560x1440 averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS.

Q: How much does the CPU outperform the GPU in percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Which settings should be used at 3840x2160 for the best result?

A: The Low preset at 3840x2160 averages 33 FPS, which is the highest average at that resolution. Medium averages 26 FPS, while High and Ultra both average 19 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the Low preset provides the highest average FPS at 56. This is the only configuration that comes close to the 60 FPS threshold, though it still falls short. The Medium preset at 43 FPS is the next best option, followed by High at 33 FPS and Ultra at 31 FPS. For users who prioritize frame rate over visual quality, Low is the clear choice at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is the best available result. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, which is larger than the gap between High and Ultra at 1 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the higher preset levels.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 33 FPS, the highest at this resolution. Medium averages 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, while High and Ultra are identical in performance, suggesting that the Ultra preset offers no additional visual benefit without a frame rate cost, but it also offers no performance advantage over High.

Across all three resolutions, the Low preset consistently delivers the best frame rates, but none of the presets at any resolution reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the best overall configuration, followed by 1080p Medium, then 1440p Low, and so on.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-14400F and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's low standing in the database. The rank reflects the measured FPS data across all resolutions and presets, none of which meet the playable threshold.

The combo's position is heavily influenced by the GPU's 9th percentile ranking. The CPU's 83rd percentile ranking does little to boost the overall performance, as the GPU bottleneck dominates the frame rate results. In practical terms, this combo sits near the bottom of the database, with only 412 tested combinations ranking lower.

For context, the GPU's nearest rivals in the database all have similar 3DMark scores, and the CPU's nearest rivals have similar average benchmark scores, but the combined performance is still insufficient for this game. The rank of 3302 out of 3714 indicates that most other tested combinations, even those with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs, would likely outperform this setup in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data suggests that the GPU is the primary factor dragging this combo down, and any upgrade path would need to focus on replacing the Intel Arc B390 to achieve playable frame rates.