Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i9-14900K paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a highly unusual combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU is a top-tier desktop processor, while the GPU is an integrated graphics solution with a low benchmark percentile. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and presets fall well below the 60 FPS playable threshold, indicating that the graphics solution is the primary limiting factor. This analysis breaks down the recorded data to show exactly where this combo stands and what users can expect.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the measured FPS data, no settings preset at any resolution achieves the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database records no "playable settings" for any resolution, meaning the best preset is the one that yields the highest frame rate, even if it falls short of the target.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 33, recorded with Low settings. This is the only preset at this resolution that approaches 60 FPS, though it remains far below. Medium settings yield 26 FPS, while High and Ultra both produce 19 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings again provide the best result with 45 FPS. Medium settings drop to 35 FPS, High to 26 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for the next preset tier.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 56 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target. Medium settings produce 43 FPS, High yields 33 FPS, and Ultra drops to 31 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and preset, the combo misses the playable threshold by 4 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU and GPU combination at 3302 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations, which is consistent with the GPU's low benchmark standing. The Intel Arc B390 has a percentile rank of 9 among all GPUs, meaning it outperforms only 9% of the database's tested graphics hardware.

The CPU, by contrast, performs exceptionally well on its own. The Intel Core i9-14900K holds a 95th percentile rank among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79097. This stark contrast between CPU and GPU capability explains the overall combo rank. The data suggests that the GPU's integrated nature and limited 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 throughput severely bottleneck the system, preventing the CPU from contributing meaningfully to game performance.

The combo rank of 3302 out of 3714 is driven almost entirely by the GPU. In a flight simulator that relies heavily on both CPU simulation calculations and GPU rendering, the system's overall score reflects the weakest link. The recorded frame rates, which never exceed 56 FPS even at the lowest settings, corroborate this assessment.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database provides average FPS for all resolution and settings combinations, with minimum and maximum values recorded only for Medium presets.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS with a range of 22 to 30 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra also averages 19 FPS. The transition from Low to Medium costs 7 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 7 FPS. High and Ultra show identical averages, suggesting a GPU bottleneck that prevents any additional visual settings from affecting performance.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 10 FPS drop, while Medium to High costs 9 FPS. High to Ultra shows only a 1 FPS difference, again indicating that the GPU is saturated.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 56 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS with a range of 37 to 50 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The Low to Medium drop is 13 FPS, the largest single-step penalty across all resolutions. Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium settings is 37, which is 23 FPS below the playable threshold.

The trend across all resolutions shows diminishing returns from lower to higher presets. The GPU's limited shading units (1536) and ROPs (24) create a hard ceiling, and the data shows that once High settings are reached, further increases in visual quality yield almost no additional performance loss because the frame rate is already at a floor.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow performance band. The Intel Core i9-14900KF has an average score of 79371, which is 0.3% below the i9-14900K. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 79574, 0.6% below. The AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041, 1.2% below, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740, which is 1.7% above the i9-14900K. These deltas are negligible for gaming, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA integrated or entry-level parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% below the Arc B390. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% below, and the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% below. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% below. These deltas are all within 3%, meaning users could expect very similar performance from any of these GPUs in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Arc B390's 1482 benchmark score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the same performance class as these legacy parts.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The database records no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average FPS is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best preset to use at 1920x1080?

A: Low settings provide the highest average FPS at 56. Medium settings drop to 43 FPS, High to 33 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. Even the best option falls short of the target.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in the database's benchmark. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX is 1.3% slower, the GeForce 800M is 1.5% slower, the GeForce GT 625 OEM is 2.5% slower, and the GeForce GT 710 is 2.7% slower. All are within a 3% performance band.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the bottleneck. The Intel Core i9-14900K ranks in the 95th percentile among CPUs, while the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among GPUs. The frame rates across different settings show a hard ceiling typical of GPU saturation.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 2560x1440?

A: Low averages 45 FPS, while Ultra averages 25 FPS. This is a 20 FPS difference, but both are far below the playable threshold.

Q: Does the combo rank in the database reflect playability?

A: The combo ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations. This low rank aligns with the measured frame rates, none of which reach 60 FPS. The rank is a relative measure against all tested hardware, not a direct playability score.

The Verdict

The verdict from the database is clear: this system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, and the avgFpsAtBest is null for each. The measured data confirms this: the best case scenario is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings, which misses the 60 FPS threshold.

At 3840x2160, the best result is 33 FPS on Low, which is less than 55% of the target. At 2560x1440, the best is 45 FPS on Low, or 75% of the target. At 1920x1080, the best is 56 FPS on Low, or 93% of the target. The system is close at 1080p Low but still not playable by the database's standard.

Users seeking a playable experience would need to lower the resolution below 1080p, though no data exists for such configurations. The database also shows that increasing settings from Low to Medium incurs a 13 FPS penalty at 1080p, meaning even a modest visual upgrade pushes the frame rate further away from the target.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data reveals a stark imbalance between the CPU and GPU. The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor with a 95th percentile CPU rank. Its single-thread and multi-thread benchmark scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39399.5 and a single-core score of 2262.5. This CPU is more than capable of handling the simulation aspects of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The Intel Arc B390, however, is an integrated GPU with 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, and it has 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU's 9th percentile rank among all GPUs places it in the bottom tier of the database's tested hardware. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 is comparable to decade-old entry-level discrete GPUs.

The scaling between resolutions confirms the GPU bottleneck. At Low settings, dropping from 4K to 1440p improves FPS from 33 to 45, and further to 1080p yields 56 FPS. This resolution scaling is directly tied to pixel throughput, which is limited by the GPU's ROPs and fill rate. The CPU's role in this scaling is minimal, as the simulation load remains constant across resolutions.

The settings scaling tells a similar story. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS (56 to 31). This drop is almost entirely due to increased GPU workload from higher visual fidelity. The CPU's performance headroom is unused, as the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough to become CPU-bound.

At 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra is only 14 FPS (33 to 19), and High and Ultra produce identical averages. This indicates that the GPU is completely saturated at this resolution, and additional settings have no measurable impact. The CPU is effectively idle waiting for the GPU, which is the definitive sign of a GPU-limited configuration.

In summary, the CPU plays a negligible role in this game's performance with this GPU. The Arc B390's integrated design and low compute throughput cap the frame rate at all tested settings. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is the sole determinant of playability, and its performance is insufficient.