Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, this combination delivers an average of 30 FPS on Low settings, 23 FPS on Medium (with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS), 18 FPS on High, and 17 FPS on Ultra. The spread between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, which indicates that the graphics card is the limiting factor at this resolution, as raising the preset from Low to Ultra nearly halves the frame rate. The Medium preset shows a tight 7 FPS variance between minimum and maximum, suggesting consistent frame pacing under moderate load.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average frame rates improve across all presets: 41 FPS on Low, 32 FPS on Medium (minimum 27 FPS, maximum 36 FPS), 24 FPS on High, and 23 FPS on Ultra. The jump from 4K to 1440p yields a 36.7% improvement on Low (from 30 to 41 FPS) and a 39.1% improvement on Medium (from 23 to 32 FPS). However, the High preset only gains 33.3% (from 18 to 24 FPS), and Ultra gains 35.3% (from 17 to 23 FPS). This indicates that while resolution scaling helps, the GPU still struggles to maintain playable rates even at the lower resolution.

At 1920x1080, the results are the strongest of the three tested resolutions. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, Medium produces 39 FPS (minimum 33 FPS, maximum 45 FPS), High produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 22 FPS, which is a 44% drop. Notably, the Medium preset at 1080p has a 12 FPS delta between minimum and maximum, which is the widest variance recorded in the entire dataset, indicating occasional frame spikes during dense scenery loading.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low is the only preset that comes close to the 60 FPS playable threshold, and even then, the best result is 50 FPS at 1080p. The Medium presets at every resolution fall short of 40 FPS, and High and Ultra presets remain below 31 FPS everywhere. The data shows no resolution or preset combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with High settings?

A: No. The measured average FPS at 1920x1080 High is 30 FPS, which is exactly half of the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Ultra preset at the same resolution averages 28 FPS, and even Medium only reaches 39 FPS.

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

A: The highest average FPS in the dataset is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination exceeds this value.

Q: How does the frame rate scale from 4K to 1080p?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS improves from 30 at 3840x2160 to 41 at 2560x1440 and 50 at 1920x1080. For Medium settings, the progression is 23, 32, and 39 FPS respectively. The scaling is not linear, with the largest relative gain occurring between 4K and 1440p.

Q: Is there any preset at any resolution that reaches 60 FPS?

A: No. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings for any resolution. The closest result is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 Low, which is 10 FPS below the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values recorded?

A: Only the Medium presets include min/max data. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS. No other preset has recorded min/max values in the database.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 7.7% of all tested hardware pairs for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU, an Intel Core i7-12700KF, has an average benchmark score of 35,365 and ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13700T (average score 35,403, 0.1% faster), the Intel Core 5 213PE (average score 35,428, 0.2% faster), the Intel Core i5-13600T (average score 35,305, 0.2% slower), and the Intel Core i7-12700K (average score 35,287, 0.2% slower). These four processors are essentially performance twins, with deltas under 0.3%. For any benchmark that is CPU-bound, swapping to any of these rivals would produce nearly identical frame rates, within a rounding error.

The GPU, an Intel Arc B370, has an average benchmark score of 1,184 and ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (average score 1,186, 0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (average score 1,190, 0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (average score 1,192, 0.7% faster), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (average score 1,168, 1.4% slower). These graphics solutions are all within 2% of each other in raw compute benchmarks, meaning that a system using any of these GPUs would deliver frame rates in the same single-digit to low-fifties range as the Arc B370, depending on resolution and preset.

Given that the CPU is in the 85th percentile while the GPU is in the 5th percentile, the performance ceiling for this combo is firmly dictated by the graphics side. Replacing the CPU with any of its nearest rivals would yield no measurable difference in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the game's frame rate at all tested settings is well below what the CPU can feed. Conversely, the GPU's nearest rivals are all ancient or low-end parts, which explains the consistently sub-60 FPS results across the entire measurement matrix.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset tested. The verdictByResolution data shows no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. At 4K, the best average is 30 FPS on Low, and Ultra drops to 17 FPS. At 1440p, Low reaches 41 FPS, but Medium falls to 32 FPS, and High and Ultra are at 24 and 23 FPS. At 1080p, Low is the closest to playable at 50 FPS, but Medium, High, and Ultra all remain below 40 FPS.

The data indicates that even at the lowest settings and the smallest resolution, the combination misses the 60 FPS target by 10 FPS. For a flight simulator where smooth frame rates are critical for reading instruments and judging descent rates, the 50 FPS Low preset at 1080p may be marginally usable, but it does not meet the defined playable threshold. Users seeking a playable experience would need to consider either lowering the resolution below 1080p (not tested) or replacing the GPU, as the CPU is not the bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pair ranks 3428 out of 3714 total combos. This places it in the bottom 7.7% of all systems tested for this game. The rank is driven almost entirely by the GPU, which sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 85th percentile. The combination of a high-end CPU with a very low-end GPU creates a severe imbalance, and the recorded frame rates reflect the GPU's inability to push pixels at any resolution.

The 3428 rank means that roughly 85.8% of tested combinations deliver higher average frame rates in this game. The only systems that would rank lower are those with GPUs scoring below the Arc B370's 1,184 3DMark Steel Nomad score, such as the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168, 1.4% slower). In practical terms, this combo sits at the edge of the playable envelope, but it falls on the wrong side for every tested configuration.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The highest average is 30 FPS on Low, but since the playable threshold is 60 FPS, there is no recommended setting. The database lists no best settings for this resolution.

For 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. The maximum average is 41 FPS on Low, which is 19 FPS below the threshold. No playable settings exist.

For 1920x1080, Low settings produce the best average at 50 FPS. While this does not clear the 60 FPS threshold, it is the only configuration that comes within 10 FPS of playable. Medium drops to 39 FPS, High to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS. If forced to choose, Low at 1080p is the most viable option, but strictly speaking, no preset meets the 60 FPS requirement.

CPU and GPU Roles

The CPU, Intel Core i7-12700KF, has a 3DMark 16-thread score of 9,282 and a single-thread score of 1,043. It ranks in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU, Intel Arc B370, has a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 and ranks in the 5th percentile. This 80-percentile gap between the two components is the defining characteristic of this combo.

At 3840x2160, the frame rate drops from 30 FPS on Low to 17 FPS on Ultra, a 43% reduction. This steep scaling with preset quality indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K. The CPU's 12 cores and 20 threads are more than sufficient to feed the render pipeline at these low frame rates; the bottleneck is the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 20 ROPs.

At 2560x1440, the scaling is similar: 41 FPS on Low down to 23 FPS on Ultra, a 44% drop. The resolution reduction from 4K to 1440p improves all presets by roughly 36-39%, which is consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where pixel throughput is the constraint. The CPU's workload does not increase meaningfully at lower resolutions because the game's simulation and physics logic runs at a fixed rate regardless of resolution.

At 1920x1080, the frame rates improve further, but the preset scaling remains steep: 50 FPS on Low down to 28 FPS on Ultra, a 44% drop. The fact that the percentage drop from Low to Ultra is nearly identical (43-44%) across all three resolutions strongly suggests that the GPU is the sole performance limiter. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see diminishing returns as resolution decreases, with frame rates plateauing at a CPU-imposed ceiling. Instead, the frame rates continue to rise with lower resolution, indicating that the GPU is still saturated even at 1080p Low.

The data shows that at every resolution, the GPU is the dominant factor. The CPU's benchmark scores place it far above the needs of this game, and its nearest rivals (all within 0.2% performance) would produce identical results. The GPU, however, is comparable to parts from over a decade ago, and its 5th percentile ranking explains why no preset reaches 60 FPS. For this game, upgrading the GPU would yield substantial frame rate gains, while swapping the CPU would have no measurable impact.