Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core i7-12700KF, the database places this processor at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35,365. The nearest rivals in terms of aggregate CPU performance are tightly clustered. The Intel Core i7-13700T scores 35,403, which is 0.1% higher, making it essentially indistinguishable in multi-threaded workloads. The Intel Core i5-13600T scores 35,305, a 0.2% deficit, and the Intel Core 5 213PE scores 35,428, a 0.2% lead. The Intel Core i7-12700K, the direct sibling of the 12700KF without the unlocked multiplier benefits, scores 35,287, also a 0.2% difference. In practical terms, any of these four processors would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the performance deltas are well within measurement noise. The 12700KF's 12 cores, 20 threads, and 5.00 GHz boost clock place it in a performance tier where CPU-bound scenarios, such as complex airport scenery or dense urban areas, would behave similarly across these alternatives.

For the Intel Arc B390, the situation is markedly different. This integrated GPU, based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with Panther Lake silicon, scores 1,482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. That places it at only the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463 (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% slower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% slower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% slower). These are all entry-level or integrated-class graphics solutions from over a decade ago. The Arc B390's 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, paired with a 2,500 MHz boost clock, yield 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The performance parity with these older NVIDIA parts means that any system relying on this GPU for Microsoft Flight Simulator will deliver frame rates consistent with that legacy tier, regardless of which of these rivals is installed.

When considering the combination, the CPU is a high-end desktop part while the GPU is an integrated solution. The nearest rivals for the CPU all represent modern desktop or high-TDP mobile parts, while the GPU rivals are all from the distant past. This pairing creates an extreme imbalance where the processor has ample headroom, but the graphics solution becomes the definitive bottleneck.

CPU and GPU Roles

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the division of labor between the Intel Core i7-12700KF and the Intel Arc B390 is clear from the measured frame rates. The game is notoriously demanding on both the CPU for simulation and physics calculations, and the GPU for rendering the vast, detailed scenery. However, with this specific GPU, the graphics workload dominates the performance ceiling.

Examining the scaling across resolutions reveals the GPU's influence. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, it drops to 45 FPS, a 19.6% reduction. Moving to 3840x2160 at Low settings yields 33 FPS, a further 26.7% drop from 1440p. This steep decline as resolution increases is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the simulation workload is largely resolution-independent.

The preset scaling further confirms the GPU's role. At 1920x1080, moving from Low (56 FPS) to Medium (43 FPS) is a 23.2% drop, and from Medium to High (33 FPS) is another 23.3% drop. The step from High to Ultra (31 FPS) is only a 6.1% reduction, suggesting that the Ultra preset introduces additional CPU-side simulation costs that the 12700KF can partially absorb, but the GPU is still the primary constraint. At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds: Low at 45 FPS, Medium at 35 FPS (22.2% drop), High at 26 FPS (25.7% drop), and Ultra at 25 FPS (3.8% drop). At 3840x2160, Low is 33 FPS, Medium is 26 FPS (21.2% drop), High is 19 FPS (26.9% drop), and Ultra is 19 FPS (no change).

The data indicates that the Arc B390's rendering capabilities are exhausted well before the 12700KF's computational headroom is reached. The CPU is more than capable of feeding the GPU at all settings, but the GPU simply cannot translate that data into higher frame rates. The 12-core, 20-thread processor with 25 MB of L3 cache handles the simulation thread and the rendering thread without becoming a bottleneck, as evidenced by the fact that frame rate drops are proportional to the increased rendering load, not to the increased simulation complexity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains measured frame rates for this combination across three resolutions and four quality presets. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and none of the measured configurations reach that mark.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the best result comes from Low settings. The average FPS is 56, with no minimum or maximum recorded. This is within 4 FPS of the 60 FPS threshold, but it does not clear it. Medium settings yield an average of 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High settings drop to an average of 33 FPS, and Ultra settings average 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 13 FPS, which is significant, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates fall further. Low settings average 45 FPS, which is 11 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 20 FPS, slightly less than the 25 FPS spread at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is nearing its absolute limits at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium settings average 26 FPS (with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30), High settings average 19 FPS, and Ultra settings also average 19 FPS. The fact that High and Ultra produce identical averages suggests that the GPU is fully saturated, and any additional rendering work from the Ultra preset is either being dropped or has no measurable impact on the final frame rate. The minimum FPS of 22 at Medium settings shows that even the least demanding preset at this resolution can dip below 25 FPS during complex scenes.

No configuration in the database achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest is 1920x1080 at Low settings, with a 56 FPS average, which is 4 FPS short.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all 3,714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the Intel Core i7-12700KF and Intel Arc B390 ranks at position 3,302. That places it in the 11th percentile of all tested systems, meaning roughly 89% of all combinations deliver higher frame rates in this game.

The rank is heavily influenced by the GPU. The 12700KF is an 85th percentile CPU, so the processor alone would rank much higher. The Arc B390, at the 9th percentile among GPUs, drags the overall combination down to the bottom 11% of all tested systems. This is a textbook example of a GPU-limited configuration. The CPU's 3DMark scores, such as 9,983 in the max threads test and 12,111 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, are strong indicators of a processor that can handle the game's simulation demands. However, the GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,482 is the limiting factor.

The rank of 3,302 out of 3,714 means that this system is in the bottom quarter of the bottom half. It is faster than only 412 other combinations in the database. For context, the CPU's nearest rivals (the 13700T, 13600T, and 12700K) would all produce similar CPU performance, but paired with a discrete GPU, they would rank substantially higher. The Arc B390's nearest GPU rivals, such as the GeForce GT 710, would produce similar or worse frame rates, confirming that this combination is firmly in the entry-level graphics tier.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 above 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded at 1920x1080 is 56 FPS on Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. All other presets at this resolution are lower, with Medium at 43 FPS, High at 33 FPS, and Ultra at 31 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset to use at 2560x1440?

A: The database shows that no preset at 2560x1440 reaches 60 FPS. Low settings provide the highest average at 45 FPS, followed by Medium at 35 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. The minimum recorded FPS at Medium settings is 30 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463 (1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% slower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% slower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% slower). All are within 3% of the Arc B390.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-12700KF the bottleneck in this system?

A: The data indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck. At 3840x2160, High and Ultra settings both produce 19 FPS, suggesting the GPU is fully saturated. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking and its performance relative to the 13700T (0.1% difference) and 12700K (0.2% difference) show it has ample headroom for this game.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 3840x2160 with Medium settings?

A: The measured average FPS at 3840x2160 with Medium settings is 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. This is well below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How many combinations in the database perform worse than this system?

A: This combination ranks 3,302 out of 3,714 tested systems. That means 412 combinations perform worse, and 3,301 combinations perform better in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays closest to 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 56 FPS. However, this does not reach the 60 FPS threshold. The next step up, Medium, averages 43 FPS, which is a substantial drop. Since no preset clears 60 FPS, the best setting is Low, as it provides the highest average frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the best setting is Low, averaging 45 FPS. Medium drops to 35 FPS, High to 26 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. Again, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the best setting is Low, averaging 33 FPS. Medium averages 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. The GPU is so constrained at this resolution that the difference between Low and Medium is only 7 FPS, and the difference between High and Ultra is zero.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings provide the highest frame rates, and the playable threshold of 60 FPS is never reached. The system can only be described as marginally playable at 1080p Low, and even that is 4 FPS short of the target.

The Verdict

According to the database's verdict by resolution, this system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdict for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080 all list no playable settings, meaning no configuration achieves the 60 FPS threshold.

Looking at the actual measured data, the closest this combination comes to playable is 1920x1080 at Low settings, with an average of 56 FPS. That is 4 FPS short of the target. At 2560x1440, the best average is 45 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160, the best average is 33 FPS on Low.

The Intel Core i7-12700KF is a strong processor that performs within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700K and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-13700T. It is not the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390, however, is an integrated GPU that performs at the level of a decade-old discrete graphics card. Its 3DMark score of 1,482 places it at the 9th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 710 and GeForce GT 625 OEM.

The combination ranks 3,302 out of 3,714 tested systems, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. The verdict is clear: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable frame rate. The CPU is capable, but the GPU is insufficient for this game's rendering demands. Users would need to either lower the resolution below 1080p, which is not tested in the database, or replace the GPU with a discrete solution to achieve 60 FPS. As measured, the system falls short at every resolution and preset combination.