Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i7-14700K paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents an unusual combination in the database. The CPU is a high-end 20-core desktop processor, while the GPU is an integrated graphics solution with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482. Benchmark results for Microsoft Flight Simulator show that this pairing struggles to maintain playable frame rates, with no resolution or preset combination reaching the 60 FPS threshold. The recorded data indicates a significant bottleneck in the graphics subsystem, as the CPU's capabilities cannot compensate for the GPU's limited rendering throughput.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the results are consistently below playable levels. The Low preset delivers an average of 33 FPS, the Medium preset averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30, while both High and Ultra presets average 19 FPS. No minimum or maximum values are recorded for the High, Low, or Ultra presets at this resolution, but the averages alone show that even the least demanding settings fall far short of 60 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance improves but remains inadequate for smooth gameplay. The Low preset reaches an average of 45 FPS, the Medium preset averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at this resolution is 10 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is already saturated at these settings.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. The Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across all tested configurations. Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and preset, the average stays below the 60 FPS playable threshold, with a 4 FPS deficit. The Medium preset's minimum of 37 FPS indicates that frame pacing would be inconsistent during demanding flight scenarios.

The scaling pattern across resolutions is consistent. Comparing Low presets, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 11 FPS (from 56 to 45), and from 1440p to 2160p is another 12 FPS (from 45 to 33). For Medium presets, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 8 FPS (from 43 to 35), and from 1440p to 2160p is 9 FPS (from 35 to 26). This linear degradation suggests the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution, as pixel count increases directly reduce output.

FAQ

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

A: No. The recorded data shows no configuration reaching 60 FPS. The highest average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which still falls 4 FPS short of the playable threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443). These rivals are all older, low-end parts, and the small deltas indicate the Arc B390 sits in a similar performance class.

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

A: The best average FPS is 56, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. The next best is 45 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 43 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the Core i7-14700K rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Core i7-14700K sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69355. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9115, scores 69288 (0.1% lower), while the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996 (0.9% higher).

Q: Does changing the graphics preset from Low to Ultra affect performance similarly at all resolutions?

A: The data shows the impact is larger at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the drop from Low (56 FPS) to Ultra (31 FPS) is 25 FPS. At 1440p, the same preset change drops from 45 to 25 FPS, a 20 FPS loss. At 2160p, the drop is from 33 to 19 FPS, a 14 FPS loss. Higher resolutions have less headroom, so preset changes produce smaller absolute differences.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded in any tested configuration?

A: The lowest minimum FPS is 22, recorded at 3840x2160 with Medium settings. The 1440p Medium preset has a minimum of 30, and the 1080p Medium preset has a minimum of 37. No minimum values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Core i7-14700K is a 20-core, 28-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, an average benchmark score of 69355, and a 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are all high-end AMD processors, with deltas under 1%. This CPU has ample compute headroom for a flight simulator, which typically relies heavily on single-thread performance for flight physics and scenery loading.

The Intel Arc B390, however, is an integrated GPU with 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals being low-end discrete parts from the GeForce GT series. The GPU's FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, but these specifications translate to poor real-world performance in this simulation.

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals which component dominates. When resolution increases from 1080p to 1440p, the Low preset drops from 56 to 45 FPS, a 19.6% reduction. From 1440p to 2160p, it drops from 45 to 33 FPS, a 26.7% reduction. If the CPU were the limiting factor, resolution changes would have minimal impact on frame rates. The consistent drops with each resolution increase indicate the GPU is fully saturated and cannot keep up with the render load.

The preset scaling tells a similar story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, from Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. The diminishing returns at higher presets suggest the GPU is reaching its architectural limits, where additional effects and draw calls overwhelm its 24 ROPs and 7.680 TFLOPS of compute. The CPU's high single-thread performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2160, is not the constraint here.

At 2160p, the situation is more extreme. The difference between Low and High is only 14 FPS (33 to 19), and Ultra matches High at 19 FPS. This compression of performance across presets at high resolution is a classic sign of pixel fillrate limitation, where the GPU's 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate becomes the binding constraint regardless of settings complexity. The CPU is effectively idle waiting for the GPU at this resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow performance band. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515, which is 0.2% higher than the Core i7-14700K's 69355. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 69875 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996 (0.9% higher). The AMD EPYC 9115 scores 69288 (0.1% lower). Any of these processors would deliver statistically identical CPU performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning the frame rates recorded with the Arc B390 would not change if the CPU were swapped for one of these alternatives.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are dramatically slower parts from NVIDIA's older lineup. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower than the Arc B390. The GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% lower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% lower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% lower). These deltas are small, so swapping the Arc B390 for any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates. The user would see essentially the same 56 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low, and the same inability to hit 60 FPS.

The implication is that the Arc B390 performs at the level of a decade-old entry-level discrete GPU, despite being a newer integrated solution. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking is irrelevant when paired with a GPU in the 9th percentile. The performance class of the entire system is defined by the GPU, not the CPU.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdict data confirms that no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which is below that threshold.

At 1080p Low, the system comes within 4 FPS of playability, but the margin is too thin to consider the experience acceptable. Flight simulators often experience frame rate dips during complex scenery or weather, and the 1080p Medium preset already shows a minimum of 37 FPS, indicating significant variance. Even if the Low preset's average were exactly 60, the lack of minimum FPS data suggests it would likely drop below during demanding moments.

At 1440p and 2160p, the results are categorically unplayable. The best averages at these resolutions are 45 FPS (1440p Low) and 33 FPS (2160p Low), both far below the threshold. The Medium preset at 1440p averages 35 FPS with a 30 FPS minimum, which would produce noticeable stuttering. The verdict is clear: this combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any tested setting.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11% of all systems in the database for this specific game. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe limitation, as the Arc B390's 9th percentile GPU ranking drags down the entire system despite the Core i7-14700K's 94th percentile CPU ranking.

The gap between the CPU and GPU percentiles is extreme. A 94th percentile CPU paired with a 9th percentile GPU creates a system where the GPU determines the outcome. The combo rank of 3302 out of 3714 means that 412 other tested combinations perform worse, but the vast majority of systems in the database outperform this pairing. For a flight simulator that demands sustained rendering performance, this rank indicates the system is fundamentally mismatched for the task.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no settings reach 60 FPS. The best average is 33 FPS at Low, but since this is below the playable threshold, no recommended settings exist. The verdict data confirms that playable settings are absent at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is below 60 FPS. No settings at this resolution reach the playable threshold, so the verdict lists no best settings.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to playability. However, since 56 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold, the verdict still lists no playable settings. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS, all progressively further from the target.

The data shows that no preset at any resolution clears the 60 FPS bar. The most demanding preset that could be considered would be 1080p Low at 56 FPS, but it fails the strict threshold. Users seeking 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator would need a different GPU, as the Arc B390's performance ceiling is simply too low for this title. The Core i7-14700K has ample processing power, but the integrated Arc B390 cannot translate that into acceptable frame rates.