Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the Intel Arc B390 in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a consistent pattern of sub-60 FPS performance across all tested resolutions and settings. The measurements are organized by resolution, with three to four presets tested at each. At 3840x2160, the highest tested resolution, the results are uniformly low. The Low preset produced an average of 33 FPS, the Medium preset averaged 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS, the High preset averaged 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset also averaged 19 FPS. The lack of min and max values for the Low, High, and Ultra presets at this resolution indicates that only average frame rates were recorded for those configurations, while the Medium preset benefited from a full min-max range.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly but remains far from the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Low preset averaged 45 FPS, the Medium preset averaged 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40 FPS, the High preset averaged 26 FPS, and the Ultra preset averaged 25 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 20 FPS, showing that the preset scaling is significant but that even the least demanding settings cannot approach playability. At 1920x1080, the lowest tested resolution, the numbers are the highest in the entire dataset. The Low preset averaged 56 FPS, the Medium preset averaged 43 FPS with a range of 37 to 50 FPS, the High preset averaged 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averaged 31 FPS. The 56 FPS average at 1080p Low is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target, but it still falls short.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset is the only one with complete min and max data, and those ranges show tight clustering around the averages. For instance, at 1080p Medium, the spread from minimum to maximum is 13 FPS, and at 1440p Medium, the spread is 10 FPS. This consistency suggests that the frame pacing is stable but that the absolute performance is the limiting factor. The data shows a clear resolution scaling effect: dropping from 2160p to 1440p improves averages by roughly 35 to 45% depending on the preset, and dropping from 1440p to 1080p improves averages by another 24 to 28%. For example, the Low preset goes from 33 FPS at 2160p to 45 FPS at 1440p to 56 FPS at 1080p, while the High preset goes from 19 FPS at 2160p to 26 FPS at 1440p to 33 FPS at 1080p.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average is 56 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. No other configuration surpasses this value in the recorded data.

Q: Does the Medium preset ever reach 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The Medium preset averages are 26 FPS at 3840x2160, 35 FPS at 2560x1440, and 43 FPS at 1920x1080. The maximum recorded for any Medium preset is 50 FPS at 1080p, which still falls short of 60 FPS.

Q: How much does lowering the resolution from 4K to 1080p help at the High preset?

A: At 3840x2160 High, the average is 19 FPS. At 2560x1440 High, it is 26 FPS. At 1920x1080 High, it is 33 FPS. This represents a 74% improvement from 4K to 1080p, but the final number remains below the playable threshold.

Q: Is there any preset at 2560x1440 that comes close to 60 FPS?

A: The Low preset at 1440p averages 45 FPS, which is the best result at that resolution. It is still 15 FPS short of the 60 FPS target, and no other preset at 1440p exceeds 35 FPS.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values for the Medium preset at 1920x1080?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum is 37 FPS and the maximum is 50 FPS, with an average of 43 FPS. This is the only 1080p preset with a full min-max range recorded.

Q: At which resolution does the Ultra preset perform the worst?

A: The Ultra preset averages 19 FPS at 3840x2160, which ties with the High preset at that resolution. At 2560x1440, Ultra averages 25 FPS, and at 1920x1080, it averages 31 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings for any resolution, as all averages fall below the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict by resolution explicitly lists empty arrays for playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, with no best settings or average FPS at best provided. However, examining the measured data reveals the most demanding preset that comes closest to 60 FPS at each resolution. At 3840x2160, the Low preset is the only option that breaks 30 FPS, averaging 33 FPS. The Medium preset averages 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is 15 FPS below the target. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the single best result in the entire dataset. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS.

Since the verdict by resolution indicates no playable settings, the practical recommendation is that no configuration achieves the 60 FPS standard. The closest approach is 1080p Low at 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS short. The data suggests that a user would need to accept frame rates in the mid-50s at best, or lower the resolution below 1080p, which is not covered in the measurements. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a more balanced visual experience at 43 FPS, but it sacrifices 13 FPS compared to Low. For users prioritizing frame rate, the Low preset at each resolution is the strongest option, while for users prioritizing visual fidelity, the Medium preset at 1080p is the highest quality setting that maintains an average above 40 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 with the Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations, indicating that it performs significantly below the median. The combo rank reflects the overall capability of this specific CPU and GPU pairing for this particular game, and the low ranking aligns with the measured FPS data, which shows no configuration reaching 60 FPS. The percentile data for the individual components supports this ranking. The CPU sits at the 47th percentile among all tested processors, meaning it is roughly average, while the GPU sits at the 9th percentile among all tested graphics cards, placing it in the bottom tenth of the field. This disparity suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as its percentile ranking is far lower than the CPU's.

The combo rank of 3302 out of 3714 means that only 412 tested combinations perform worse. This is a meaningful context: while the i5-9400 is a mid-range processor from its generation, the Arc B390 drags the overall performance down considerably. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy CPU and GPU demands, the combination's low rank is not surprising given the GPU's benchmark scores. The GPU's average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the 9th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA entry-level cards, which further contextualizes its position. The CPU, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 2254 across multiple tests, ranking in the 47th percentile, which is far more respectable. The measured FPS data reflects this imbalance: the system consistently falls short of 60 FPS even at 1080p Low, which would be an easy target for a more capable GPU paired with this CPU.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core i5-9400 are four processors with very similar average benchmark scores. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 has an average score of 2259, which is 0.2% lower than the i5-9400's 2254. The Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248, which is 0.3% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246, which is 0.4% higher. The Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264, which is 0.4% lower. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning that swapping the i5-9400 for any of these CPUs would produce virtually identical performance in CPU-bound scenarios. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, where the GPU is the primary bottleneck, the choice among these CPUs would have minimal impact on the measured FPS.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest rivals are all NVIDIA GPUs with slightly lower or higher scores. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower than the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, which is 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, which is 2.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, which is 2.7% lower. These are all very old, low-end GPUs, and the deltas indicate that the Arc B390 performs within 3% of these models. In practical terms, a system with any of these GPUs paired with a comparable CPU would deliver similar FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GT 710, for instance, would be expected to produce nearly identical results to the Arc B390, meaning that users upgrading from such a GPU would see little to no improvement in this game. The data shows that the Arc B390 is not a meaningful step up from these legacy parts, at least in this title.

The Verdict

The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: this combination cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any tested resolution or preset. At 3840x2160, no settings are playable, and the best average is 33 FPS on Low. At 2560x1440, no settings are playable, and the best average is 45 FPS on Low. At 1920x1080, no settings are playable, and the best average is 56 FPS on Low. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and every single data point falls below it. The closest result is 1080p Low at 56 FPS, which is 4 FPS short. This is a significant shortfall, and it means that users would experience noticeable stutter and reduced smoothness during flight, particularly in dense areas or during complex weather scenarios.

The data indicates that this system is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at the target frame rate. Even at the lowest resolution and settings, the average FPS does not reach the threshold. The Medium preset at 1080p, which is a more visually reasonable setting, averages only 43 FPS, which is 17 FPS below the target. For a flight simulator, where smooth camera panning and detailed terrain rendering are crucial, such frame rates would likely result in a compromised experience. The verdict is clear: the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the Intel Arc B390 does not meet the 60 FPS standard at any resolution or preset covered by the measurements.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-9400 with 6 cores and 6 threads, is a mid-range part from 2018, and its benchmark scores place it at the 47th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, an Intel Arc B390, is a much weaker component, sitting at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The FPS scaling across resolutions indicates that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck. When moving from 3840x2160 to 2560x1440, the average FPS increases by approximately 35% across most presets. For example, Low goes from 33 to 45, Medium from 26 to 35, and High from 19 to 26. When moving from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080, the increases are smaller but still present: Low goes from 45 to 56, Medium from 35 to 43, and High from 26 to 33. This scaling pattern is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where reducing the resolution directly reduces the pixel count and thus the GPU workload.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when looking at the preset scaling at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS (56 to 31), while at 2160p, the difference is only 14 FPS (33 to 19). This suggests that at lower resolutions, the CPU has more influence on the frame rate, as the GPU is less stressed and the CPU's ability to feed the render pipeline matters more. However, even at 1080p Low, the average is 56 FPS, which indicates that the CPU is not capable of pushing the frame rate to 60 FPS even when the GPU workload is minimal. The CPU's single-core benchmark score of 935 in Cinebench R23 and multi-core score of 6629 suggest that it has enough processing power for the game's simulation logic, but the overall performance is still capped by the combination.

The data shows that at 3840x2160, the GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor, as even the Low preset produces only 33 FPS, which is a very low number for a low preset. At 2560x1440, the GPU remains the primary constraint, but the CPU's influence grows slightly, as evidenced by the larger spread between presets. At 1920x1080, the CPU and GPU are more balanced, but neither is strong enough to achieve 60 FPS. The verdict is that for this game, the GPU is the component that matters most for resolution scaling, while the CPU matters more for preset scaling at lower resolutions. Users looking to improve performance would need to upgrade the GPU first, as its 9th percentile ranking is the most obvious weak point. The CPU, at the 47th percentile, is closer to average and would be a secondary consideration.