Microsoft Flight Simulator

Intel Core i7-14700KF and Intel Arc B390 is a combination that ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the lower 11th percentile of all recorded configurations, indicating that while the CPU is exceptionally strong, the graphics component severely limits overall performance in this flight simulator. The benchmark results show a system that cannot achieve the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution tested, even at the lowest settings. The data reveals a profound bottleneck where the GPU consistently caps frame rates well below what the processor is capable of delivering, making this combo unsuitable for smooth gameplay at standard monitor resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i7-14700KF and Intel Arc B390 sits at rank 3302 out of 3714 combinations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This percentile placement is primarily driven by the graphics card, which ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, a score that places it in the company of much older or lower-end discrete graphics solutions. The CPU, by contrast, stands at the 94th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 70163 across multiple tests. The disparity between these two components is stark: the processor is a top-tier part, while the graphics solution performs at a level that is only 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% above the GeForce 800M, 2.5% above the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% above the GeForce GT 710 according to nearest rival scores. This ranking indicates that the measured FPS results are almost entirely constrained by the GPU, with the CPU having little opportunity to influence the outcome.

The combo rank of 3302 out of 3714 means that only about 412 tested configurations perform worse in this specific game. The low GPU percentile, combined with the fact that the Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with system-shared memory, explains why frame rates remain so low. For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy graphics load, this combination is fundamentally mismatched. The CPU’s high multi-core performance, evidenced by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44167, cannot compensate for a GPU that delivers only 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. The recorded data shows a system that is processor-rich but graphics-poor, resulting in a combination rank that reflects the weakest link rather than the average of the two components.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the highest average FPS recorded is 56 at Low settings. This is the closest the combination comes to the 60 FPS playable threshold, but it still falls short. At Medium settings, the average drops to 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. High settings yield 33 FPS average, and Ultra produces 31 FPS average. None of these presets reach the 60 FPS target, so the best playable setting at 1080p is technically none, but Low at 56 FPS is the most viable option for users willing to accept a slightly sub-60 experience.

At 2560x1440, the performance gap widens. Low settings produce an average of 45 FPS, which is the highest recorded at this resolution. Medium settings average 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The 45 FPS at Low is far from the 60 FPS threshold, and no preset at this resolution is genuinely playable by the database standard.

At 3840x2160, the results are even more constrained. Low settings achieve an average of 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. The 4K resolution is clearly beyond the capability of the Intel Arc B390, and the data shows no path to 60 FPS at any settings level. The verdict by resolution confirms this: all three resolutions have empty playable settings lists, indicating that the 60 FPS threshold is never cleared.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the dominant factor at every resolution and settings combination. The Intel Arc B390, being an IGP with system-shared memory and a TDP of 80 W, is the clear limiting component. The CPU’s role is essentially irrelevant in this pairing because the graphics unit cannot keep up with the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Evidence for this comes from the scaling between resolutions. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 56. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 45. At 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 33. This pattern shows a consistent degradation as pixel count increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would not scale so directly with resolution.

The delta between Low and Ultra settings further confirms the GPU constraint. At 1920x1080, Low averages 56 FPS while Ultra averages 31 FPS, a reduction of 25 FPS or about 45%. At 2560x1440, the same comparison shows 45 FPS at Low versus 25 FPS at Ultra, a 20 FPS drop. At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS and Ultra averages 19 FPS, a 14 FPS reduction. This settings sensitivity is typical of a graphics-limited workload, where increasing visual fidelity directly taxes the GPU’s shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The Arc B390 has only 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, which are low counts even for integrated graphics, and the data reflects this hardware reality.

The CPU, on the other hand, shows no signs of being a limiting factor. With 20 cores and 28 threads, a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44167, the i7-14700KF has ample headroom for a flight simulator’s physics and scenery processing. The fact that frame rates stay low even at 1080p Low, where CPU load would be relatively higher, suggests that the GPU is saturated well before the CPU reaches its limits. The recorded data does not show any scenario where raising the CPU’s performance would improve FPS; instead, the bottleneck is entirely in the graphics pipeline.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA discrete cards from older generations. The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX’s 1463, 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M’s 1460, 2.5% higher than the GeForce GT 625 OEM’s 1446, and 2.7% higher than the GeForce GT 710’s 1443. These delta percentages are small, meaning that swapping the Arc B390 for any of these NVIDIA parts would yield nearly identical performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Users considering a different GPU from this performance tier should expect the same sub-60 FPS results at all resolutions. The GeForce GT 710, for example, is a card commonly found in basic office systems, and the data shows it performs within 2.7% of the Arc B390, which is a useful reference point for understanding the graphics capability here.

On the CPU side, the Intel Core i7-14700KF has an average score of 70163, with nearest rivals being the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F at 69996 (0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX at 69875 (0.4% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 69515 (0.9% slower), and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K at 70879 (1.0% faster). These rivals are all high-end processors that would behave nearly identically in this game when paired with the Arc B390, because the GPU bottleneck dominates. Someone looking to build a system with similar overall performance could swap the i7-14700KF for any of these CPUs and see no meaningful change in FPS, as the measured results are entirely dictated by the graphics solution. The delta percentages are all within 1%, confirming that CPU choice among these parts has negligible impact on Microsoft Flight Simulator’s frame rates when the GPU is this weak.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded average FPS values are 19 for High, 33 for Low, 26 for Medium, and 19 for Ultra. The Medium setting is the only one with both minimum and maximum values recorded, showing a range of 22 to 30 FPS. The High and Ultra settings both average 19 FPS, indicating that the game is hitting a hard floor at this resolution regardless of visual complexity. Low settings at 33 FPS is the best result at 4K, but it still falls far below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 26 for High, 45 for Low, 35 for Medium, and 25 for Ultra. Medium shows a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40 FPS, providing a more complete picture of the frame time variance. The progression from Low to Ultra is consistent: 45, 35, 26, 25. This shows that stepping from Low to Medium costs 10 FPS, Medium to High costs 9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 1 FPS, which suggests diminishing returns at the higher presets.

At 1920x1080, the averages are 33 for High, 56 for Low, 43 for Medium, and 31 for Ultra. Medium records a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is a loss of 13 FPS, from Medium to High a loss of 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra a loss of 2 FPS. The Low setting at 56 FPS is the single best result across all resolutions and settings, coming within 4 FPS of the playable threshold. However, it still does not clear 60 FPS, and the database’s verdict lists no playable settings for any resolution.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level according to the 60 FPS threshold used by the database. The verdict by resolution is clear: for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, the playable settings list is empty, and no best settings or average FPS at best are provided because the threshold is never reached. The highest recorded average FPS is 56 at 1920x1080 Low, which is below the 60 FPS target. At 1440p, the best is 45 FPS at Low, and at 4K, the best is 33 FPS at Low. The Intel Arc B390’s integrated nature, with system-shared memory and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, is simply insufficient for this game’s graphics demands. Users seeking to play Microsoft Flight Simulator with this CPU would need a substantially more powerful discrete GPU, as the current data shows no settings combination that achieves smooth frame rates. The CPU itself is more than capable, but the pairing as tested is not viable for the 60 FPS standard.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 56, recorded at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Can this system run the game at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The verdict by resolution shows empty playable settings lists for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, meaning the 60 FPS threshold is not cleared at any resolution or preset.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M, 2.5% higher than the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% higher than the GeForce GT 710.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this combination?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates scale directly with resolution and settings changes, which is characteristic of a graphics-bound scenario, while the CPU has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44167 and is not the constraint.

Q: What are the average FPS values at 2560x1440 for each preset?

A: At 2560x1440, the averages are 26 FPS for High, 45 FPS for Low, 35 FPS for Medium, and 25 FPS for Ultra.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-14700KF have CPU rivals that perform similarly?

A: Yes. The nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (0.2% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (0.4% slower), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.9% slower), and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K (1.0% faster), all within a small delta of the i7-14700KF’s average score of 70163.