Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i7-12700K sits in a tight cluster of comparable processors according to aggregate benchmark scores. The closest match is the Intel Core i5-13600T, which scores 35305 against the i7-12700K's average of 35287, a delta of just -0.1 percent. The Intel Core i7-12700KF is nearly identical at 35365 (-0.2 percent), which makes sense given it is the same silicon without integrated graphics. The Intel Core i7-13700T and Intel Core 5 213PE follow at 35403 (-0.3 percent) and 35428 (-0.4 percent) respectively. These four rivals all fall within a 0.4 percent band, meaning any of them would deliver effectively the same CPU-bound behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

For the graphics side, the Intel Arc B390 presents a very different picture. Its average benchmark score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all older discrete parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3 percent behind the Arc B390. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M trails by 1.5 percent at 1460, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM and GT 710 sit at 1446 and 1443, representing deltas of 2.5 and 2.7 percent respectively. These are not modern gaming GPUs; they are entry-level or legacy parts. The Arc B390's integrated nature, sharing system memory, explains why its performance profile aligns with such modest hardware. In practical terms, a system with this CPU and GPU would behave most like a machine with the i7-12700K paired with one of those older NVIDIA parts, though the Arc B390 does hold a small edge over each of them.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded frame rates reveal a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics subsystem. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56. Moving to Medium drops the average to 43, a reduction of 13 FPS or roughly 23 percent. High settings yield 33 FPS, and Ultra falls to 31 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra at 1080p is a 25 FPS gap, which indicates that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck. A stronger graphics solution would show less dramatic drops as settings increase, because the CPU would be able to feed frames more consistently.

At 2560x1440, the pattern intensifies. Low settings produce 45 FPS on average, Medium drops to 35, High to 26, and Ultra to 25. The step from Low to Medium is a 10 FPS loss, and the drop from Medium to High is another 9 FPS. At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more severe. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 26, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. The resolution scaling shows that doubling the pixel count from 1080p to 4K cuts the Low-settings frame rate from 56 to 33, a decline of 41 percent. This is a clear sign that the Arc B390's fill rate and memory bandwidth, both tied to system shared memory, cannot keep up with higher resolutions.

The CPU's role is comparatively minor in this pairing. The i7-12700K has strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19784 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 15790. Its single-thread results are also solid, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1850.5. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for demanding CPU work on simulation logic, but the data here shows that frame rates are limited by the GPU far earlier. At every resolution and preset combination, the measured FPS is below the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the GPU's 9th percentile ranking makes it the clear limiting factor. The CPU would not be the reason for low frame rates; the integrated graphics simply cannot render the scene fast enough.

FAQ

Q: Can this system achieve 60 FPS at any resolution in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. The database records no settings combination at any resolution that reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

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

A: The best result is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next highest is 45 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, and then 33 FPS at 3840x2160 with Low settings.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in raw benchmark terms?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. It leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX by 1.3 percent, the GeForce 800M by 1.5 percent, the GeForce GT 625 OEM by 2.5 percent, and the GeForce GT 710 by 2.7 percent.

Q: Does increasing the resolution have a consistent impact on performance?

A: Yes. At Low settings, average FPS drops from 56 at 1920x1080 to 45 at 2560x1440, then to 33 at 3840x2160. Each resolution step roughly follows a similar proportional decline, indicating the GPU is saturated.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The i7-12700K ranks in the 84th percentile among all CPUs, while the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among GPUs. The frame rate scaling with settings and resolution matches GPU-bound behavior.

Q: What is the lowest recorded average FPS across all tested configurations?

A: Both 3840x2160 High and 3840x2160 Ultra produce an average of 19 FPS. The 3840x2160 Medium setting averages 26 FPS, and the 3840x2160 Low setting averages 33 FPS.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and no resolution or preset combination reaches that mark. At 1920x1080, the best case scenario is 56 FPS on Low settings, which is 4 FPS short of the threshold. At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160, Low settings deliver 33 FPS. The verdictByResolution field confirms that there are no playable settings at any resolution, with no best settings identified.

The i7-12700K is a capable processor, ranking in the 84th percentile of all CPUs with a strong multi-core score of 19784 in Cinebench R23. However, the Arc B390's 9th percentile GPU ranking and its 1482 average benchmark score place it firmly in entry-level territory. The combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in this game, putting it in the bottom 11 percent of all systems tested. For anyone hoping to fly at 60 FPS, this hardware will not deliver that experience. The system may be usable for other tasks, but in Microsoft Flight Simulator, it falls short at every tested configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS must be identified. Since no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS, the best settings per resolution are effectively "none." The database does not list a playable preset for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The closest to playable is 1920x1080 Low at 56 FPS, but that still misses the 60 FPS target by a meaningful margin. The 2560x1440 Low setting at 45 FPS and the 3840x2160 Low setting at 33 FPS are progressively further from the threshold.

In practical terms, a user could select the lowest preset at the lowest resolution to get the smoothest experience, but it will not be a full 60 FPS experience. The data shows no configuration where the frame rate meets the playable standard, so the answer is that no settings combination qualifies as "best" under the playable threshold rule.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i7-12700K and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lowest 11 percent of all systems tested for this game. The ranking reflects the severe GPU bottleneck. While the CPU is in the 84th percentile globally, the GPU's 9th percentile standing drags the overall combination down. The nearest rival GPUs are all legacy parts with scores in the 1440 to 1463 range, and the Arc B390 only marginally outperforms them. A system with a stronger discrete GPU would rank far higher, as the CPU side is not the constraint. The data indicates that this combo is only suitable for very low-end gaming or non-gaming workloads; for Microsoft Flight Simulator, it is near the bottom of the database's tested configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows. On Low settings, the average FPS is 33. Medium settings yield an average of 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. High settings drop to an average of 19 FPS. Ultra settings also average 19 FPS. No min or max values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution, only the average.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 45 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings average 26 FPS. Ultra settings average 25 FPS. Again, min and max values are only present for Medium.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver the highest average in the entire dataset at 56 FPS. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High settings average 33 FPS. Ultra settings average 31 FPS. The Medium setting is the only one with recorded min and max values at this resolution.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings always provide the highest frame rate, followed by Medium, then High and Ultra which are nearly identical. The gap between Low and Ultra grows with resolution. At 1080p, the gap is 25 FPS (56 vs 31). At 1440p, the gap is 20 FPS (45 vs 25). At 4K, the gap is 14 FPS (33 vs 19). This diminishing gap at higher resolutions suggests that even the Low preset is already pushing the GPU to its limits, and the additional load from higher settings cannot be fully realized because the GPU is saturated. The overall takeaway from the measured FPS data is that this system is firmly below the playable threshold everywhere, and the only way to approach playability is to use the Low preset at 1080p, which still falls short by 4 FPS.