Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Arc B570 combination delivers a playable experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only at lower resolutions and settings. The data shows a clear ceiling: 1080p Medium and 1440p Low are the only configurations that maintain an average above the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 4K, no tested setting reaches playable frame rates, with the best average of 51 FPS at Low settings falling short.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest resolution at which this PC can achieve 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest resolution with a playable average is 2560x1440, but only at Low settings, where the average FPS is 69. At 1920x1080, both Low and Medium settings clear 60 FPS, with averages of 86 and 67 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 compare to its nearest CPU rivals in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 36,938 in the average benchmark, which is essentially identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36,945 (0% delta). It is slightly behind the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D by 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4%, and the Intel Core i9-12900T by 0.5%.

Q: What is the strongest graphical setting this combo can run at 1920x1080 while staying above 60 FPS?

A: The Medium preset is the most demanding setting that stays above 60 FPS at 1080p, producing an average of 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS.

Q: Which component is more important for performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator at higher resolutions?

A: The data suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K, the average FPS drops from 86 at 1080p Low to 51 at 4K Low, a 41% reduction, while the CPU's workload remains relatively constant across resolutions.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B570 comparable to any other GPU in the benchmark database?

A: Yes, the Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20,556 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534) and Intel Arc A750 (20,582). It is also close to the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20,480) and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662).

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU and GPU combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the lower half of all tested systems for this specific game.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and the Intel Arc B570 shifts noticeably as resolution changes. At 1920x1080, the CPU's single-thread performance, reflected in a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655, is sufficient to feed the GPU. The average FPS at Low settings is 86, which suggests the CPU is not the primary bottleneck at this resolution. The GPU, with an FP32 throughput of 11.52 TFLOPS, handles the geometry and texture work adequately.

Moving to 2560x1440, the GPU begins to strain. The average FPS at Low settings falls from 86 to 69, a 20% drop, while the CPU's workload remains similar. This indicates the GPU is now the limiting factor, as the higher pixel count demands more from the Arc B570's 10 GB of GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Medium preset at 1440p shows a further decline to 54 FPS, reinforcing that the GPU's compute resources are saturated.

At 3840x2160, the GPU bottleneck becomes severe. The average FPS at Low settings drops to 51, and at Medium it falls to 40. The Ultra preset produces just 28 FPS. The CPU's performance is less relevant here; even with strong single-core scores, the GPU cannot render enough frames per second to utilize the CPU fully. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a 41% reduction in FPS, which aligns with the GPU's pixel rate of 200.0 GPixel/s being insufficient for 4K at high frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the data shows a narrow range of results. The Low preset delivers an average of 51 FPS with no min or max recorded. Medium produces an average of 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 46. High drops to an average of 30 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28 FPS. None of these settings approach the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the picture improves. Low settings achieve an average of 69 FPS, which is the only playable configuration at this resolution. Medium falls to 54 FPS on average, with a minimum of 46 and maximum of 62. High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 15 FPS, indicating a significant performance cost for the additional visual fidelity.

At 1920x1080, the system shows its best performance. Low settings run at an average of 86 FPS. Medium drops to 67 FPS on average, with a minimum of 57 and a maximum of 77, which remains playable. High averages 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 19 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 17 FPS, showing a steep scaling curve as settings increase.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable envelope is limited. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold with both Low (86 FPS) and Medium (67 FPS) settings. The Medium preset is the best choice for visual quality at this resolution, as it stays above 60 FPS on average.

At 2560x1440, only the Low preset achieves a playable average of 69 FPS. The Medium preset falls to 54 FPS, which is below the threshold. This resolution requires a significant compromise in visual quality to maintain smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, no settings achieve 60 FPS. The best result is 51 FPS at Low settings, which is below the playable threshold. This combination is not suitable for 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as even the lowest settings cannot maintain a smooth frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 20% of all systems tested for this game. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions, which is the primary factor holding back the overall score. The CPU's performance is adequate for the game, but the Arc B570's 10 GB of memory and 160-bit bus width constrain the system's ability to handle the game's demanding rendering requirements at 1440p and 4K.

The combination's position in the rankings suggests that while it can handle the game at modest settings, it falls well short of the performance offered by higher-end configurations. The gap between the 2988th rank and the top 1000 is substantial, indicating that users seeking higher fidelity or resolution would need a more powerful GPU to achieve a better result.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that maintains an average of 60 FPS or higher is Medium, with an average FPS of 67. This provides a good balance between visual quality and performance, as the minimum FPS of 57 is close to the threshold and the maximum of 77 shows there is some headroom.

At 2560x1440, the only preset that stays above 60 FPS is Low, with an average FPS of 69. This is the recommended setting for this resolution, as the next step up, Medium, drops to 54 FPS, which would cause noticeable stuttering during intensive flight scenes.

At 3840x2160, there is no preset that achieves 60 FPS. The best option is Low with an average of 51 FPS, but this still falls short of the playable threshold. Users at this resolution would need to accept frame rates below 60 FPS or consider a different hardware configuration.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has nearest rivals that perform within 0.5% of its average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F matches it almost exactly with a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D is 0.2% slower, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 is 0.4% slower, and the Intel Core i9-12900T is 0.5% slower. For gaming purposes, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the differences are within measurement noise.

The Intel Arc B570's nearest rivals also cluster tightly. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is 0.1% faster, while the Intel Arc A750 is 0.1% slower. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is 0.4% faster, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X is 0.5% slower. These GPUs would produce very similar results in the game, with the same resolution and settings limitations. Users considering a swap between these components should expect no meaningful change in performance for Microsoft Flight Simulator.