Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Arc B370 combination produces very low frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator across all tested resolutions and presets. The data shows a system that consistently falls far below the 60 FPS playable threshold, with the best recorded result being 50 FPS at 1080p Low settings. This pairing is heavily constrained by the integrated graphics solution, which ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the results are uniformly poor. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the only double-digit average above 20 at this resolution. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS, representing a narrow band of performance. High settings drop the average to 18 FPS, while Ultra falls further to 17 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS target, and even the minimums at Medium are exactly half of the playable threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers improve but remain far from playable. Low settings produce an average of 41 FPS, a meaningful jump from the 4K result. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings average 24 FPS, while Ultra averages 23 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p shows roughly a 36% improvement at Low settings, from 30 to 41 FPS, but this is still well short of 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best results of the entire test appear. Low settings reach an average of 50 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS, indicating that each step up in preset carries a significant performance cost.

Across all resolutions, the Ultra preset consistently delivers the lowest frame rates, often only 1 to 2 FPS below High. The Medium preset always provides the only min/max data points in each resolution, suggesting that the database recorded full frame time variance only for that setting. The overall pattern is clear: this combo cannot sustain smooth gameplay at any tested setting.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the Intel Arc B370 integrated GPU is the dominant bottleneck in this system. The GPU has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, both legacy parts from over a decade ago. The GPU's TDP is just 25 W, and it uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which explains the severe performance limitations.

The CPU, in contrast, is a modern 10-core, 10-thread Arrow Lake part with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891. It ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, both capable mid-range processors. The CPU is clearly not the limiting factor in this pairing.

The resolution scaling confirms this. At 4K Low, the average is 30 FPS, while at 1080p Low, it is 50 FPS, a 67% improvement. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain similar across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not change much with resolution. Instead, the GPU workload drops significantly as resolution decreases, allowing the frame rate to rise. The same pattern holds for Medium settings, where 4K averages 23 FPS and 1080p averages 39 FPS, a 70% increase.

The preset scaling also points to GPU limits. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 50 to 28 FPS, a 44% drop. This is consistent with a GPU that struggles with increased shading, texture, and effects loads. The CPU has ample headroom, as evidenced by its high benchmark scores, but the GPU cannot translate that headroom into playable frame rates.

In practical terms, the recorded data shows that the GPU's performance ceiling is roughly 50 FPS at 1080p Low, and every additional graphics load pushes it further down. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and simulation data, which it does without issue, but the GPU's limited shading units, 1280, and low FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS prevent it from rendering the game at acceptable speeds.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combo?

A: The highest average is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only result that comes within 10 FPS of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 85th percentile. Resolution scaling shows frame rates rising as resolution drops, which indicates GPU-bound behavior.

Q: Are there any settings at 4K that reach 30 FPS?

A: Yes, the Low preset at 3840x2160 averages 30 FPS. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

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

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher, and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: Does the combo rank well among all tested systems for this game?

A: No. The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems in the database.

Q: What is the best possible average FPS at 1440p?

A: The best 1440p result is 41 FPS at Low settings. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3428 out of 3714 tested combos places this system in the 8th percentile for Microsoft Flight Simulator performance. This means that roughly 92% of all tested combinations deliver higher frame rates in this game. The ranking reflects the severe GPU limitation, as the CPU alone would likely place much higher if paired with a discrete graphics card.

The data shows that this combo is positioned at the very low end of the performance spectrum for this title. With 286 combos ranking below it, the system is not the absolute worst, but it is firmly in the bottom tier. The playable threshold of 60 FPS is not reached at any resolution or preset, and the best case scenario, 1080p Low at 50 FPS, still leaves a 10 FPS deficit.

The gap between this combo and the next tier of performance is substantial. The GPU's nearest rivals are all legacy parts from the early 2010s, which means the Arc B370 is competing with hardware that is more than a decade old. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, are modern parts, but their scores are within 0.5% of the Core Ultra 5 225, indicating that the CPU is not a differentiator in this ranking.

In practical terms, this combo is suitable for very old or lightweight games, but for Microsoft Flight Simulator, it falls short of even the minimum playable standard. The ranking data suggests that users would need to move to a system with a discrete GPU to achieve 60 FPS at 1080p, as no integrated solution in this performance class is likely to fare better.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F with an average score of 36945, which is 0% different from the Core Ultra 5 225's 36938. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, which is 0.2% lower, and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, which is 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, which is 0.5% lower. These CPUs would all deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning the frame rates would remain essentially unchanged if paired with the same Arc B370 GPU.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with an average score of 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. All of these GPUs would produce frame rates within a few percent of the Arc B370, so users with any of these parts should expect similar sub-60 FPS results across all resolutions.

The practical implication is that swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals would not change the gaming experience, as the GPU remains the limiting factor. Similarly, swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals would only shift frame rates by a few frames, keeping the system below the playable threshold. The only meaningful upgrade path would be to a discrete GPU with significantly higher benchmark scores, but such a change is outside the scope of this comparison.

The Verdict

The verdict data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any tested resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, and the bestSettings is null for all three. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

At 4K, the best average is 30 FPS at Low, which is exactly half of the threshold. At 1440p, the best average is 41 FPS at Low, still 19 FPS short. At 1080p, the best average is 50 FPS at Low, leaving a 10 FPS gap. Even the maximum frame rates recorded, which only exist for Medium settings, peak at 45 FPS at 1080p, below the target.

The data indicates that this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator, regardless of how the user configures the graphics options. The integrated GPU simply lacks the raw throughput to handle the game's rendering demands. Users seeking 60 FPS would need to consider a different GPU, as no CPU change alone would bridge the gap.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best average is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is the highest recorded value at this resolution. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The most demanding preset that stays closest to the threshold is Low, but it still falls 30 FPS short.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. Low settings produce the best average of 41 FPS, but this is 19 FPS below the target. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. No preset at this resolution clears 60 FPS, and Low is the only setting that even approaches playability.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver the best average of 50 FPS, which is the closest result in the entire test. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. Despite being the most favorable configuration, 1080p Low still fails to reach the 60 FPS threshold by 10 FPS.

The database records no playable settings for this combo, meaning there is no resolution and preset combination that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS. The best settings per resolution are all Low presets, but none of them meet the playable standard. For users who must run this game on this hardware, 1080p Low is the only viable option, and even then, the experience will be below the intended smoothness level.