Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

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

A: At 1920x1080 and 2560x1440, yes, but only on Low or Medium settings. The recorded data shows 60 FPS is cleared at 1080p Medium (72.5 avg) and 1440p Medium (61.1 avg). At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; the closest is Low at 54.4 avg.

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p?

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 1920x1080, with an average of 72.5 FPS. High and Ultra both fall below the 60 FPS threshold, at 56.3 and 56.4 avg respectively.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the dominant constraint. The frame rate drops from 54.4 avg on Low to 31.3 avg on High, a 23.1 FPS penalty. This scaling indicates the Arc B580 is saturated at 4K before the CPU becomes a limiting factor.

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

A: The Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2254, placing it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival is the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 at 2259 (0.2% faster), while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 trails by 0.4% at 2246.

Q: Is the GPU competitive with older high-end cards?

A: The Arc B580 scores 23021 on average, sitting in the 68th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP at 23061 (0.2% ahead), while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172 (0.7% ahead), indicating the B580 trades blows with much older and newer flagship-tier cards.

Q: What resolution gives the best balance of quality and playability?

A: 2560x1440 on Medium is the sweet spot. It delivers 61.1 avg FPS, just above the 60 FPS threshold, while providing a sharper image than 1080p. At 1080p Medium you get 72.5 avg FPS, which is smoother but at a lower resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: the Arc B580 is the primary performance driver across all resolutions, but its dominance grows as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the CPU has more headroom, and the GPU still manages to deliver 97.3 avg FPS on Low. Moving to 2560x1440, the same Low preset drops to 79.8 avg, a 17.5 FPS reduction. At 3840x2160, Low falls further to 54.4 avg, a 25.4 FPS drop from 1440p Low. This steady decline with resolution scaling points directly at the GPU as the limiting factor.

The CPU's role is more visible at lower resolutions where the GPU can produce high frame rates. At 1080p Low, the 97.3 avg FPS suggests the Core i5-9400 can keep feeding frames fast enough, but the gap between Low and Medium (24.8 FPS) and Medium to High (16.2 FPS) shows that the GPU is already working hard even at 1080p. The CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads, with a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, are sufficient for the simulation's single-threaded and moderately threaded workloads, but the data does not indicate CPU-bound behavior at any tested setting.

At 1440p, the GPU constraint becomes more pronounced. The difference between Low (79.8 avg) and Medium (61.1 avg) is 18.7 FPS, while Medium to High drops another 15.7 FPS. At 4K, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed: High averages 31.3 FPS and Ultra drops to 29.6 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is only 7.2 FPS, and Medium to High is 15.9 FPS, showing that as settings increase, the GPU's rendering workload grows faster than the CPU can compensate.

The percentile data reinforces this: the GPU sits at the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU is at the 47th percentile. This suggests the GPU is a stronger component relative to its peers, which explains why resolution scaling hurts FPS more than settings scaling at lower resolutions. The CPU's benchmark scores (Cinebench R23 multicore 6629, single-core 935) indicate it can handle the game's CPU demands, but the GPU's 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 456.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are the real determinants of frame rate at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a wide spread across presets. Low averages 97.3 FPS, Medium 72.5 FPS, High 56.3 FPS, and Ultra 56.4 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 24.8 FPS, while Medium to High costs 16.2 FPS. Interestingly, High and Ultra produce nearly identical averages, with only a 0.1 FPS difference, suggesting the Ultra preset adds visual features that do not tax the GPU further at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages step down more evenly. Low delivers 79.8 FPS, Medium 61.1 FPS, High 45.4 FPS, and Ultra 45.3 FPS. The Low to Medium drop is 18.7 FPS, and Medium to High is 15.7 FPS. Again, High and Ultra are essentially tied, differing by just 0.1 FPS. Medium is the only preset that stays above the 60 FPS line, while Low is comfortably faster.

At 3840x2160, the GPU struggles across all presets. Low averages 54.4 FPS, Medium 47.2 FPS, High 31.3 FPS, and Ultra 29.6 FPS. The Low to Medium drop is 7.2 FPS, Medium to High is 15.9 FPS, and High to Ultra is 1.7 FPS. No preset reaches 60 FPS at 4K, and even Low falls short by 5.6 FPS. The data shows that 4K is not playable with this combination, regardless of settings.

The minimum and maximum FPS values are not recorded in the database, so the analysis relies on averages. However, the averages alone paint a consistent picture: this system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming, with a clear preference for Medium settings if you want to stay above 60 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, are all within 0.4% of the Core i5-9400. The Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 2259 (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 2248 (0.3% slower), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 2246 (0.4% slower), and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 2264 (0.4% faster). For gaming, any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical results in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the measured FPS is heavily GPU-bound at higher resolutions.

The GPU's nearest rivals are more varied in age and tier. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23061 (0.2% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895 (0.6% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172 (0.7% faster), and the NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249 (1.0% faster). This is a striking grouping: the Arc B580 performs within 1% of cards ranging from a 2017-era RX 580 variant to the RTX 3080, which was a flagship in its generation. In practical terms, if you have one of these GPUs, you can expect similar frame rates in Flight Simulator, meaning the same resolution and preset guidance applies.

For the system as a whole, the combo rank in the game is 2818 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower 24% of all hardware pairings. This does not mean it is unplayable, but it does indicate that many other combinations will deliver higher frame rates, especially at 4K.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that holds 60 FPS or better is Medium, with an average of 72.5 FPS. This leaves a 12.5 FPS headroom above the threshold, which is useful for the occasional stutter or complex scenery. Low is also available at 97.3 FPS, but Medium provides a better visual experience without sacrificing smoothness.

At 2560x1440, the best playable preset is Medium, averaging 61.1 FPS. This is only 1.1 FPS above the 60 FPS line, so it is technically playable but leaves very little margin. Low is the safer choice if you want more headroom, at 79.8 FPS, but Medium offers noticeably better image quality. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS, at 45.4 and 45.3 respectively, and are not recommended.

At 3840x2160, there is no playable preset. The best recorded average is Low at 54.4 FPS, which is 5.6 FPS short of the threshold. Medium drops to 47.2, High to 31.3, and Ultra to 29.6. The verdict data confirms that no settings are listed as playable at 4K, and the best settings field is null. If you own a 4K monitor, you would need to run the game at a lower resolution or upgrade the GPU.

The Verdict

The data shows that this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with important caveats. At 1920x1080, the system is playable on Low and Medium, with Medium being the best choice at 72.5 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low and Medium are playable, with Medium at 61.1 FPS being the highest preset that clears 60 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset is playable; the best is Low at 54.4 FPS, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold.

The core takeaway is that this combination of Intel Core i5-9400 and Intel Arc B580 is a solid 1080p and 1440p machine for this game, but it is not a 4K solution. The GPU's 68th percentile ranking and the CPU's 47th percentile ranking indicate a balanced pairing, with the GPU being the stronger component. The recorded FPS values show that Medium settings are the highest you can use while maintaining smooth gameplay, and that pushing to High or Ultra is only advisable if you are willing to accept frame rates in the 45 to 56 range.

For a flight simulator that rewards visual detail, the 1440p Medium setting is the best compromise: it delivers 61.1 FPS, which is just above the playable line, and the resolution bump from 1080p adds significant clarity to the cockpit and terrain. If you prefer a rock-solid frame rate with more headroom, 1080p Medium at 72.5 FPS is the safer pick. The system will handle the game, but do not expect to max out the settings or play at 4K.