Microsoft Flight Simulator

Intel Core i7-14700F and Intel Arc B370 is a pairing that lands near the bottom of the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator, with a combo rank of 3428 out of 3714 tested configurations. The recorded data shows that no resolution or preset in this combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict is clear: this system cannot run the game at a playable frame rate under any tested setting.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the highest preset that delivers the best average frame rate is Low, which records 30 FPS. Medium follows at 23 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. No setting at this resolution reaches 60 FPS, and the best achievable average is exactly half of the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, Low produces 41 FPS, which is the highest average among the four presets. Medium manages 32 FPS, High drops to 24 FPS, and Ultra sits at 23 FPS. Again, none of these averages approach 60 FPS, and the best setting falls 19 FPS short of the target.

At 1920x1080, Low delivers 50 FPS, the best result across all resolutions and settings in this dataset. Medium records 39 FPS, High records 30 FPS, and Ultra records 28 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution with the least demanding preset, the average frame rate is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold.

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist. The database records no playable settings at any resolution for this combination. The practical takeaway is that Low settings at 1920x1080 provide the highest recorded average, but that average still fails the playability criterion.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that resolution scaling has a pronounced effect on frame rates, which points to the GPU as the dominant constraint in this pairing. When moving from 1920x1080 Low (50 FPS) to 2560x1440 Low (41 FPS), the average drops by 9 FPS, an 18% reduction. Moving from 2560x1440 Low to 3840x2160 Low (30 FPS) drops another 11 FPS, a 27% reduction from the 1440p figure. Across the full range from 1080p Low to 4K Low, the average falls from 50 FPS to 30 FPS, a 40% reduction.

Preset scaling at a fixed resolution reinforces the GPU-bound nature. At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS while Ultra averages 28 FPS, a 22 FPS gap between the least and most demanding presets. At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS and Ultra averages 23 FPS, an 18 FPS gap. At 3840x2160, Low averages 30 FPS and Ultra averages 17 FPS, a 13 FPS gap. The absolute differences shrink as resolution increases, which is consistent with the GPU becoming the limiting factor at higher pixel counts.

The CPU, an Intel Core i7-14700F with 20 cores and 28 threads, is not the bottleneck in this scenario. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and single-core score of 4958 place it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X with an average score of 53288 and a delta of 0.6%, show that the i7-14700F is competitive in raw compute. However, the GPU, an Intel Arc B370, sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 1184. The discrepancy between a high-end CPU and a low-end integrated GPU explains why frame rates remain low across all settings.

The scaling pattern between resolutions and presets indicates that the Arc B370's rendering capabilities cap performance well before the CPU's processing limits are reached. At 1080p Low, the CPU has enough headroom to push the GPU to 50 FPS, but as resolution increases, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the limiting factor. The GPU's pixel rate is recorded at 48.00 GPixel/s and its texture rate at 96.00 GTexel/s, figures that are modest for a flight simulator with dense scenery. The CPU role is secondary, as evidenced by the fact that even the lowest preset at 1080p cannot reach 60 FPS, a situation where a CPU-bound system would typically show higher frame rates on low settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 6505P, the Intel Xeon Phi 7290, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, and the AMD EPYC 7313P. The Intel Xeon 6505P has an average score of 53701 with a delta of -0.2% relative to the i7-14700F, meaning it performs nearly identically in synthetic benchmarks. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469, a 0.3% delta, also effectively equivalent. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, a 0.6% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, a 0.8% delta. These four alternatives would behave similarly in CPU-bound scenarios, though the game is GPU-bound in this pairing, so their impact on Microsoft Flight Simulator frame rates would be minimal.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, the ATI Radeon HD 5770, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and the AMD FirePro M2000. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 has an average score of 1186 with a delta of -0.2%, making it essentially a match for the Arc B370. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a -0.5% delta, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a -0.7% delta. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, a 1.4% delta, slightly lower. All of these alternatives would produce very similar frame rates in this game, as they sit within a narrow band of GPU performance. Swapping the Arc B370 for any of these would not change the fundamental outcome: sub-60 FPS at all resolutions and presets.

The combination of a high-percentile CPU with a low-percentile GPU means that users looking for similar behavior should focus on the GPU tier. The CPU alternatives listed above would not alter the measured FPS, while the GPU alternatives would yield nearly identical results. The database shows that this GPU class is simply not suited for Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS target, regardless of the CPU attached.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Based on the recorded data, the answer is no, not at the playable threshold of 60 FPS. The verdict by resolution is consistent: no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best average frame rate across the entire dataset is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS target by 10 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the highest recorded average is 30 FPS on Low, and Ultra drops to 17 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS and Ultra averages 23 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. None of these clears 60 FPS, and the verdict field for each resolution lists no playable settings.

The data indicates that this system would require significant reductions in graphical fidelity or resolution below what is tested to approach playability, but the lowest tested configuration, 1080p Low, still fails the threshold. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and its nearest rivals, all of which are over a decade old in the database, suggest that this integrated graphics solution is not designed for demanding flight simulation workloads. The CPU is more than capable, ranking in the 91st percentile, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations in this game.

Users with this exact configuration should not expect a smooth experience at any resolution. The measured FPS values are all below 60, and many are below 30, which would result in noticeable stuttering and poor responsiveness in a flight simulator where precise control is essential. The verdict is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the playable threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the database records four presets. Low averages 30 FPS with no min or max values recorded. Medium averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High averages 18 FPS with no min or max. Ultra averages 17 FPS with no min or max. The spread from Low to Ultra is 13 FPS, and even the best average is half the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS with no min or max. Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High averages 24 FPS with no min or max. Ultra averages 23 FPS with no min or max. The gap between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS, and all values remain below 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS with no min or max. Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High averages 30 FPS with no min or max. Ultra averages 28 FPS with no min or max. This resolution offers the highest numbers in the dataset, but the maximum recorded value, 45 FPS on Medium, is still 15 FPS below the 60 FPS target.

The min and max values are only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 3840x2160, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 2560x1440, the range is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1920x1080, the range is 33 to 45 FPS. These ranges indicate that even the best-case frame times on Medium settings do not approach playability. The absence of min and max data for other presets does not change the overall picture, as the averages are consistently low.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this system achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Are there any settings where this system reaches 60 FPS?

A: No. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Every tested preset falls below 60 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 53701, a -0.2% delta, the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53469, a 0.3% delta, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53288, a 0.6% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, a 0.8% delta. These are all effectively equivalent in performance.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a -0.2% delta, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a -0.5% delta, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a -0.7% delta, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, a 1.4% delta. All of these are within a 1.5% performance band.

Q: What is the best preset to use at 1920x1080 for maximum frame rate?

A: Low settings produce the highest average at 50 FPS. Medium drops to 39 FPS, High to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS.

Q: Does increasing resolution have a larger impact on frame rate than increasing preset quality?

A: Yes. Moving from 1920x1080 Low (50 FPS) to 3840x2160 Low (30 FPS) results in a 20 FPS drop. Moving from Low to Ultra at 1920x1080 results in a 22 FPS drop, but at 3840x2160 the Low to Ultra gap is only 13 FPS. The resolution impact is consistent across presets, while preset impact shrinks at higher resolutions, indicating the GPU is the limiting factor.