Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i7-14700F paired with the Intel Arc B390 is a severely unbalanced combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU is a high-end desktop processor, while the GPU is an integrated-class part with performance comparable to decade-old entry-level graphics cards. The recorded data shows that this system cannot reach the 60 FPS playability threshold at any resolution or preset, and in most configurations it falls far short of that target.

FAQ

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

A: No. The recorded measurements show no resolution or preset combination reaches 60 FPS. The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is still below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: What is the best performing settings combination for this hardware?

A: The best average frame rate is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that comes close to playable performance, though it still falls short of the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all tested GPUs. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1.3% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1.5% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 2.5% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 2.7% higher.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 3840x2160, frame rates range from 19 FPS on Ultra to 33 FPS on Low. The CPU's substantial compute resources cannot compensate for the GPU's limited rendering capability at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 56 FPS on Low to 31 FPS on Ultra, a reduction of 25 FPS. The Medium preset records 43 FPS, while High records 33 FPS.

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

A: This CPU and GPU combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The benchmark data places the Intel Arc B390 in a very specific performance tier. Among its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1.3% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1.5% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 2.5% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 2.7% higher. These deltas are small enough that in practical gaming terms, any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same CPU.

The CPU side tells a different story. The Intel Core i7-14700F sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs tested. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 6505P, which scores 0.2% lower, the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 at 0.3% higher, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 0.6% higher, and the AMD EPYC 7313P at 0.8% higher. These are all high-core-count server or workstation processors, which underscores the fact that the i7-14700F is not the performance bottleneck in this system.

For someone considering this combination, the data suggests that swapping the Arc B390 for any of its direct rivals would change results by only a few percentage points. Similarly, swapping the i7-14700F for one of its nearest rivals would produce nearly identical results. The performance ceiling is dictated almost entirely by the GPU tier, not the CPU tier.

The measured frame rates confirm this interpretation. At 1920x1080 Low, the system records 56 FPS. At 1920x1080 Ultra, it drops to 31 FPS. The scaling across presets is consistent with a GPU that has very limited shading units, texture mapping units, and raster output units. The Arc B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it alongside GPUs from over a decade ago.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy CPU utilization due to its complex flight models, weather simulation, and scenery streaming. The Intel Core i7-14700F provides substantial headroom in this regard, with 20 cores, 28 threads, and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and single-core score of 4958 place it well above what the game demands at the tested settings.

The GPU role becomes dominant as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the system records 56 FPS on Low and 33 FPS on High. Moving to 2560x1440, the same settings drop to 45 FPS on Low and 26 FPS on High. At 3840x2160, Low records 33 FPS and High records 19 FPS. This consistent drop of roughly 20 to 25 percent at each resolution step indicates that the GPU is saturated at every resolution, and the CPU has no opportunity to compensate.

Preset scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 3840x2160, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 14 FPS (33 down to 19). At 2560x1440, the spread is 20 FPS (45 down to 25). At 1920x1080, the spread is 25 FPS (56 down to 31). The widening spread at lower resolutions suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is less overloaded and can show more differentiation between presets, but even there it never reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

The CPU's role is effectively neutral at all tested configurations. The data shows that at every resolution, the frame rate scales directly with GPU workload. If the CPU were a limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates flatten out at higher resolutions or presets, but that is not the case. The i7-14700F has ample headroom to feed the Arc B390, and the bottleneck is overwhelmingly on the graphics side.

For players who want to improve performance, the data points to a GPU upgrade as the only meaningful path. Replacing the Arc B390 with a more capable GPU would allow the CPU to stretch its legs, but the current pairing leaves the CPU largely idle while the GPU struggles to maintain playable frame rates.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The playability threshold is 60 FPS, and the recorded measurements show no resolution or preset combination that reaches that mark. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system records an average of 56 FPS, which is the closest result but still 4 FPS short of the target.

At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160, the best result is 33 FPS on Low. None of these configurations are close to playable, and the Ultra presets at every resolution are far worse, ranging from 19 to 31 FPS.

The verdict by resolution is clear: there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, no playable settings at 2560x1440, and no playable settings at 1920x1080. The system falls short of the 60 FPS threshold in every single tested configuration.

For users who are willing to accept frame rates well below 60 FPS, the game is technically playable in the sense that it will run, but the experience will be marred by frequent stutters and a lack of smoothness. The recorded minimum frame rates at Medium presets are 22 FPS at 4K, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 37 FPS at 1080p, which gives some indication of the variability users can expect.

Ultimately that this hardware combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution. The CPU is more than capable, but the GPU is simply too weak to drive the game's demanding rendering workload.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the best possible average frame rate is 33 FPS, achieved with Low settings. The Medium preset records 26 FPS, High records 19 FPS, and Ultra records 19 FPS. None of these are close to the 60 FPS target, but Low is the least bad option.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 45 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium records 35 FPS, High records 26 FPS, and Ultra records 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, which suggests that even a modest increase in graphical load significantly impacts performance.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS, which is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combination. Medium records 43 FPS, High records 33 FPS, and Ultra records 31 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, and the jump from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS.

In all cases, the recommendation is to use Low settings if the goal is to maximize frame rate, but even that does not reach the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows that this combination is best suited for users who are willing to play at 1080p with minimal graphical fidelity, and who can tolerate frame rates in the 50s rather than the desired 60.

How This Combo Ranks

This CPU and GPU combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11 percent of all systems that have been measured for this game.

The ranking reflects the severe mismatch between the two components. The Intel Core i7-14700F is a top-tier desktop processor, ranking in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and Geekbench multi-core score of 19620 are indicative of a CPU that can handle the most demanding simulation workloads.

The Intel Arc B390, by contrast, ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the company of integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs from a previous hardware generation. The GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 24 ROPs are simply insufficient for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which renders dense scenery, complex lighting, and detailed aircraft models.

The combination of a very strong CPU and a very weak GPU creates a system that underperforms relative to what either component suggests on its own. Users who have this CPU and are considering this GPU should expect results similar to what the data shows: frame rates that hover in the 19 to 56 FPS range depending on resolution and settings, with no configuration reaching the 60 FPS playability threshold.

The ranking also implies that many other tested combinations, including those with much weaker CPUs, would achieve better results in this game if paired with a more capable GPU. The data consistently points to the GPU as the decisive factor in Microsoft Flight Simulator performance for this system.