Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the recorded data for this Intel Core i5-14600K with Intel Arc B390 configuration confirms that it struggles to maintain playable frame rates across all tested resolutions and presets. The benchmark results show a clear pattern: the higher the resolution and the more demanding the preset, the lower the average FPS, with no configuration reaching the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are consistently below playable levels. With Low settings, the average FPS is 33. Medium settings drop the average to 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. High settings yield an average of 19 FPS, and Ultra settings also produce an average of 19 FPS. The data indicates that at 4K, even the least demanding preset falls far short of the 60 FPS target, with the gap being substantial across the board.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the numbers improve but remain insufficient for smooth gameplay. Low settings achieve an average of 45 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 26 FPS, while Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The best result at this resolution, 45 FPS on Low, still misses the 60 FPS threshold by a significant margin, indicating that the combination of this CPU and GPU is not capable of delivering fluid performance at 1440p.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the configuration performs best but still cannot reach playable levels. Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS, the highest recorded average in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings average 33 FPS, and Ultra settings average 31 FPS. Even the most favorable result, 56 FPS on Low at 1080p, falls just short of the 60 FPS playable threshold, meaning the system cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS experience under any tested condition.

The measured FPS data reveals that this hardware configuration is fundamentally limited in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The average frame rates at every resolution and preset combination are below the playable threshold, and the minimum FPS values, where recorded, reinforce the inconsistency. For example, at 1440p Medium, the minimum of 30 FPS indicates noticeable dips that would be disruptive in a flight simulation context. The data suggests a hardware bottleneck that prevents the system from delivering the smooth performance expected for this title.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any setting?

A: No. The recorded data shows that no tested resolution and preset combination reaches 60 FPS. The closest result is 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which still falls short of the playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average FPS this configuration achieves?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 56, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only result within 4 FPS of the 60 FPS target, but it does not meet it.

Q: How does the performance change between 1080p and 1440p?

A: There is a consistent drop in average FPS when moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440. For example, Low settings drop from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, a decrease of 11 FPS. Medium settings drop from 43 FPS to 35 FPS, and High settings drop from 33 FPS to 26 FPS.

Q: Is there a difference between High and Ultra settings at the same resolution?

A: The differences are modest. At 1920x1080, High averages 33 FPS while Ultra averages 31 FPS, a 2 FPS difference. At 2560x1440, High averages 26 FPS while Ultra averages 25 FPS, a 1 FPS difference. At 3840x2160, both High and Ultra average 19 FPS.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values recorded for this configuration?

A: Minimum FPS values were recorded only for Medium settings. At 1920x1080, the minimum is 37 FPS. At 2560x1440, the minimum is 30 FPS. At 3840x2160, the minimum is 22 FPS. Other presets did not have minimum FPS data recorded.

Q: How does this configuration rank among all tested hardware combinations?

A: The database ranks this combination at 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom portion of all recorded configurations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Microsoft Flight Simulator indicates that the GPU plays the dominant role in determining performance, with the Intel Arc B390 being the limiting factor across all tested resolutions. The recorded FPS values scale significantly with resolution changes, which is a hallmark of GPU-bound workloads. When resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the average FPS at Low settings drops from 56 to 33, a 41% reduction. This steep decline demonstrates that the GPU is unable to maintain frame rates as pixel count increases, while the CPU, an Intel Core i5-14600K with 14 cores and 20 threads, has ample headroom for the simulation's processing demands.

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution with 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. Its performance characteristics, as shown by the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, place it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This low percentile ranking is consistent with the measured FPS results, which show the GPU struggling even at 1080p. In contrast, the CPU sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24491 and a single-core score of 2064. The vast discrepancy between CPU and GPU capability suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this configuration.

The scaling between presets further confirms the GPU's role. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average FPS from 56 to 43, and moving to High reduces it to 33. These preset changes primarily affect graphical fidelity and rendering complexity, which burden the GPU. The CPU, with its high single-thread performance, is not the limiting factor in these scenarios. The data shows that even at the least demanding preset, the GPU cannot push frame rates to the 60 FPS threshold, indicating that any CPU upgrade would not improve performance without a corresponding GPU upgrade.

At higher resolutions, the GPU's limitations become even more pronounced. At 3840x2160, the difference between Low and Medium is only 7 FPS (33 to 26), and between Medium and High is also 7 FPS (26 to 19). This compression of FPS values at 4K suggests that the GPU is fully saturated, and further graphical demands have diminishing returns. The CPU's role is minimal at this point, as the system is entirely constrained by the GPU's rendering capacity. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy CPU usage in simulation calculations, the data here shows that this particular CPU is more than sufficient, and the integrated GPU is the decisive component limiting playability.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-14600K, based on average benchmark scores, provide context for its processing capability. The CPU's average benchmark score is 48618, placing it near the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H with an average score of 48698, a delta of -0.2%. The AMD EPYC 4345P scores 48470, a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX scores 48287, a 0.7% delta. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 48995, a -0.8% delta. These rivals demonstrate that the i5-14600K is positioned among capable multi-core processors, with performance differences of less than 1% across the group. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, any of these CPUs would likely perform similarly to the i5-14600K, meaning the GPU remains the limiting factor.

The Intel Arc B390's nearest rivals, based on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 scores, are all significantly older and less capable GPUs. The Arc B390 scores 1482, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% delta). These rivals are all legacy entry-level GPUs from previous generations, and their similar scores indicate that the Arc B390 performs at a level comparable to those older parts. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, any of these GPUs would likely produce similarly low frame rates, confirming that the Arc B390 is the bottleneck in this configuration.

The database also shows the overall combination rank of 3302 out of 3714, which places this hardware pairing in the lower 11% of all tested combinations for this game. This rank is driven primarily by the GPU's low percentile (9th) rather than the CPU's high percentile (90th). Users with similar CPU alternatives, such as the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, would see no meaningful difference in frame rates because the GPU would still limit performance. Conversely, pairing the i5-14600K with a more capable discrete GPU would likely yield significant improvements in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the CPU has demonstrated strong compute performance in benchmarks like Cinebench R23 and Geekbench.

Best Settings per Resolution

The benchmark data shows that no tested setting at any resolution achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold. Therefore, there is no recommended preset that satisfies the requirement to stay at or above 60 FPS. The closest result is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 56 FPS. This is the only configuration within 4 FPS of the target, but it still does not meet the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS on Low settings, and at 3840x2160, the best result is 33 FPS on Low settings.

For users aiming for the highest visual quality while maintaining the best possible frame rate, the data suggests that Low settings provide the highest average FPS at every resolution. However, the gap between Low and the next preset is notable. At 1920x1080, Low averages 56 FPS compared to Medium's 43 FPS, a 13 FPS difference. At 2560x1440, Low averages 45 FPS compared to Medium's 35 FPS, a 10 FPS difference. At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS compared to Medium's 26 FPS, a 7 FPS difference. The diminishing returns at higher resolutions indicate that the GPU is increasingly strained, and the visual quality gains from Medium or High settings come at a significant frame rate cost.

Given the 60 FPS playable threshold, no settings combination is viable. The highest average FPS recorded, 56 at 1080p Low, is below the threshold, and the verdict data confirms that no playable settings exist at any resolution. Users would need to accept frame rates well below 60 FPS, such as 45 FPS at 1440p Low or 33 FPS at 4K Low, which may be tolerable for a flight simulator but does not meet the standard definition of playable used in this database. The data indicates that even the lowest settings at the lowest resolution cannot deliver a consistent 60 FPS experience.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this configuration of Intel Core i5-14600K and Intel Arc B390 cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold under any tested resolution or preset. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best achievable result is 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS target by 4 FPS. The minimum FPS values, where recorded, further confirm the system's inability to maintain smooth performance, with dips as low as 37 FPS at 1080p Medium and 22 FPS at 4K Medium.

The performance data reveals a hardware imbalance. The Intel Core i5-14600K, with its 90th percentile ranking and strong multi-core and single-core benchmark scores, provides ample processing power for the simulation's computational demands. However, the Intel Arc B390, ranking in the 9th percentile of GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, is severely underpowered for this title. The GPU's integrated nature, with system-shared memory and a 80 W TDP, limits its ability to render the complex scenery and weather effects of Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates.

For users considering this hardware combination, the data suggests that the experience would be characterized by low frame rates and significant visual compromises. At 1080p Low, the average of 56 FPS is close to the threshold but likely subject to dips below 60 FPS, making it unsuitable for a consistent experience. At higher resolutions, the frame rates drop to 45 FPS or lower, which would be noticeably stuttery for most users. The combination rank of 3302 out of 3714 reinforces this assessment, placing this configuration in the bottom 11% of all tested hardware for this game. The verdict is clear: this PC does not meet the playable threshold for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution or preset tested.