Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame-rate data for this combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B570 in Microsoft Flight Simulator reveals a clear pattern: performance scales predictably with resolution and settings, but the playable envelope is limited. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the average frame rates range from 86 FPS on Low settings down to 48 FPS on Ultra. The Low preset delivers the highest headroom, while High sits at 50 FPS average, and Medium lands at 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. This indicates that at 1080p, the system can comfortably exceed the 60 FPS playable threshold, but only on the Low and Medium presets. Ultra falls short at 48 FPS average, and High is marginal at 50 FPS, both below the 60 FPS target.

Moving to 2560x1440, the average frame rates drop across every preset. Low settings produce 69 FPS, which remains above the playable threshold, while Medium averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. High settings drop to 41 FPS, and Ultra falls further to 39 FPS. The 1440p data shows that only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS bar, and even then by a narrow margin of 9 FPS. The Medium preset is close but not sufficient, sitting 6 FPS below the threshold on average. High and Ultra are definitively below playable levels, with averages in the high 30s and low 40s, indicating a significant performance cliff when moving from Low to Medium at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the situation becomes more constrained. Low settings average 51 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, while Medium averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The 4K data shows that no preset reaches 60 FPS, and even the lowest settings fall 9 FPS short. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 23 FPS, from 51 down to 28, which is a narrower range than at lower resolutions, suggesting that at 4K the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck, limiting the impact of settings changes.

The minimum and maximum frame rates, where provided, offer additional context. At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum of 57 FPS is just 3 FPS below the average of 67, and the maximum of 77 FPS shows reasonable consistency. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum is 46 FPS and the maximum is 62 FPS, a wider spread of 16 FPS, indicating more frame-time variance at higher resolution. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum is 34 FPS and the maximum is 46 FPS, a 12 FPS spread, which is tighter than 1440p but still shows noticeable dips. The lack of min/max data for Low, High, and Ultra presets at most resolutions means the averages must be taken as the primary indicator, but the available min/max values suggest that Medium settings at 1440p and 4K can experience frame drops that would be noticeable in a flight simulator where smoothness is critical.

# CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core i9-14900K and the Intel Arc B570 in Microsoft Flight Simulator shifts depending on resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the CPU's role is more prominent because the GPU has fewer pixels to render, allowing the processor to feed frames more easily. The i9-14900K, with its 24 cores and 32 threads, provides substantial compute headroom, as indicated by its benchmark scores such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39399.5 and a Passmark multithread score of 58674. However, the Arc B570's 2304 shading units and 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance become the limiting factor at higher settings. The data shows that at 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS (from 86 to 67), while moving from Medium to High costs another 17 FPS (from 67 to 50). This steep decline suggests that the GPU is saturated as settings increase, while the CPU likely has spare capacity.

At 2560x1440, the GPU's burden increases due to the higher pixel count. The frame rates drop by roughly 20% across the board compared to 1080p: Low goes from 86 to 69 FPS, Medium from 67 to 54, High from 50 to 41, and Ultra from 48 to 39. This consistent scaling indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint, as the CPU's workload does not change significantly with resolution. The i9-14900K's single-threaded strength, evidenced by a Geekbench single-core score of 2655 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4697, is sufficient to keep up with the GPU's output at this resolution, but the Arc B570's memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s and 10 GB of GDDR6 memory are being pushed harder. The fact that Medium at 1440p averages 54 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold, reinforces that the GPU is the deciding factor.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is unequivocally the bottleneck. The frame rates compress into a narrow band from 28 to 51 FPS, and the difference between Low and Ultra is only 23 FPS. The CPU's role diminishes further because the GPU cannot produce enough frames to keep the processor busy. The i9-14900K's high multi-core performance, such as its Cinebench R20 multicore score of 20793, is largely irrelevant at 4K in this game, as the workload is dominated by pixel shading and memory access. The Arc B570's 160-bit memory bus and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for 4K rendering at high settings, which explains why even Low settings only reach 51 FPS. The scaling between presets at 4K is also flatter: Low to Medium is an 11 FPS drop, Medium to High is a 10 FPS drop, and High to Ultra is a 2 FPS drop, indicating that the GPU is hitting its architectural limits rather than being constrained by any single setting.

The preset scaling across resolutions reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 38 FPS, at 1440p it is 30 FPS, and at 4K it is 23 FPS. As resolution increases, the settings have less impact on frame rate because the GPU is already saturated by the pixel count. The CPU, meanwhile, shows its strength at lower resolutions where it can maintain higher frame rates, but its contribution is capped by the GPU's throughput. For players using this combination, the data suggests that the Arc B570 is the component to upgrade or adjust settings around, while the i9-14900K provides ample processing power for the simulation's complex flight models and scenery calculations.

# Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core i9-14900K's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core i9-14900KF, which scores 79371 with a delta of -0.3% compared to the i9-14900K's average score of 79097. This means the 14900KF performs nearly identically, within a fraction of a percent, so users with that chip would see essentially the same frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 79574, a delta of -0.6%, which is also effectively a tie. The AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80041, a delta of -1.2%, meaning it is slightly faster on average but still within a narrow margin. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740, a delta of +1.7%, indicating it is slightly slower than the i9-14900K. None of these rivals deviate by more than 1.7% from the i9-14900K's average score, so in practice, swapping to any of these CPUs would not meaningfully change the FPS results in this game. The 14900KF is the closest match, and the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is also statistically indistinguishable.

For the Intel Arc B570, the nearest rivals are more varied. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, a delta of +0.1% versus the Arc B570's average score of 20556, so it is essentially equivalent in raw compute benchmarks. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the A750 is a near-perfect match for the B570, which is expected given they share the same architecture family. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, a delta of +0.4%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, a delta of -0.5%. These deltas are all within half a percent, so any of these GPUs would deliver very similar performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. However, the RTX 3070 Mobile is a laptop part, and the Quadro M4000M and R9 M390X are older workstation and mobile GPUs, so their relevance to a desktop build with the i9-14900K is limited. The Arc A750 is the most direct desktop alternative, and its nearly identical average score suggests it would produce the same frame rates at each resolution and preset in this game. Players with an Arc A750 should expect the same playable settings: Low at 1440p and Low or Medium at 1080p.

# The Verdict

The data answers whether this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B570. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS playable threshold on Low and Medium presets, with average frame rates of 86 and 67 FPS respectively. The best playable setting at 1080p is Medium, which delivers 67 FPS on average, safely above the threshold. High and Ultra do not meet the 60 FPS bar, averaging 50 and 48 FPS, so those presets are not recommended for smooth gameplay. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset reaches 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS, which is below the threshold, and High and Ultra fall further to 41 and 39 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS; the best result is Low at 51 FPS, with Medium at 40, High at 30, and Ultra at 28. Therefore, the verdict is that this combination can run the game at 1080p and 1440p, but only on lower presets, and it cannot reach playable frame rates at 4K.

For players targeting 60 FPS, the system is viable at 1080p Medium and 1440p Low. At 1080p Medium, the average of 67 FPS provides a 7 FPS margin over the threshold, and the minimum of 57 FPS indicates occasional dips below 60 but not by a large margin. At 1440p Low, the average of 69 FPS offers a 9 FPS buffer, which is more comfortable. The 4K resolution is not playable, with even the lowest settings falling 9 FPS short of the target. The verdict by resolution confirms this: 3840x2160 has no playable settings, 2560x1440 has one playable setting (Low), and 1920x1080 has two playable settings (Low and Medium). The best settings per resolution are Medium at 1080p with 67 FPS and Low at 1440p with 69 FPS, while 4K has no best setting because none meet the threshold.

# FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080 with high settings?

A: The data shows the High preset at 1920x1080 averages 50 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The system cannot maintain smooth gameplay on High at 1080p, so Medium is the highest playable setting.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: The best resolution is 1920x1080, where the Medium preset delivers 67 FPS on average. At 2560x1440, only Low reaches 60 FPS with 69 FPS, and at 3840x2160, no preset reaches the threshold.

Q: How much performance drops when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: On Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 86 FPS at 1080p to 69 FPS at 1440p, a reduction of 17 FPS. On Medium, it drops from 67 to 54 FPS, and on High from 50 to 41 FPS.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B570 the limiting factor at 4K?

A: Yes, at 3840x2160, even the Low preset only reaches 51 FPS, and the frame rate range across all presets is just 23 FPS. The GPU's performance is insufficient for 4K in this game, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

Q: Would a different CPU improve frame rates significantly?

A: No. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-14900KF and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, have average benchmark scores within 0.6% of the i9-14900K. Such a small delta would not change the FPS results in a meaningful way.

Q: What settings should I use for smooth gameplay at 2560x1440?

A: The Low preset is the only playable option at 1440p, delivering 69 FPS on average. The Medium preset falls short at 54 FPS, so it is not recommended if you want to stay at or above 60 FPS.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B570 ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower 20% of all systems. This ranking is driven by the GPU's modest performance relative to the CPU's high-end capabilities. The i9-14900K, with a percentile rank of 95 among all CPUs, is a top-tier processor, but the Arc B570, with a percentile rank of 65 among all GPUs, is more of a mid-range part. The mismatch between the two is evident in the game's frame rates, where the GPU limits performance at higher resolutions and settings. The low ranking indicates that many other combinations deliver higher average frame rates, particularly those with more powerful GPUs. Within the context of this game, the combo's performance is below average, and users seeking better results would need to pair the i9-14900K with a stronger GPU or accept lower settings. The ranking also reflects that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title, and this combo's 2988th position out of 3714 suggests it is better suited to 1080p and 1440p gaming with reduced graphical fidelity rather than high-end 4K play.

# Best Settings per Resolution

At each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is as follows. For 1920x1080, the Medium preset achieves an average of 67 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold by 7 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 57 FPS means there will be occasional dips below 60, but the average is solidly above the target. The Low preset is also playable at 86 FPS, but Medium is the highest setting that maintains the average above 60 FPS. For 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only playable option, delivering 69 FPS on average. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS, which falls below the threshold, so it is not eligible. For 3840x2160, no preset meets the 60 FPS requirement, so there is no best setting. The closest is Low at 51 FPS, but that is 9 FPS short of playable. The data from the verdict by resolution confirms these choices: 1920x1080 has playable settings of Low and Medium with the best being Medium at 67 FPS, 2560x1440 has only Low as playable at 69 FPS, and 3840x2160 has no playable settings. Players should use Medium at 1080p or Low at 1440p for the best balance of visual quality and smoothness with this hardware combination.