Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for this combination is unambiguous: none of the tested settings presets reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for 1920x1080, 2560x1440, or 3840x2160. Every measured average falls below 60 FPS, so there is no "best settings" recommendation that meets the target. The closest approach to the threshold is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 50 FPS, but that still leaves a 10 FPS gap. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 41 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 30 FPS. Medium settings at 1080p produce 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings at 1080p yield 30 FPS average, while Ultra at 1080p sits at 28 FPS. The pattern holds across all resolutions: the game is not fully playable at the 60 FPS threshold with this hardware, regardless of preset choice.

CPU and GPU Roles

This game places a heavy load on both components, but the data reveals that the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor across all resolutions. The GPU's benchmark percentile sits at 5, meaning it performs worse than 95% of tested graphics cards. Its average benchmark score is 1184, which is extremely low for a modern title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 5 235, is far more capable, sitting at the 89th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 46062. This mismatch means the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's output, so frame rates are constrained by graphics processing rather than processor throughput.

Looking at resolution scaling, the impact of the GPU becomes clearer. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 to 41, a decline of 18%. Going further to 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 30 FPS, another 27% reduction from the 1440p figure. This scaling indicates that pixel throughput is the bottleneck. At Medium settings, the averages are 39 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K, showing a consistent 20 to 30 percent drop per resolution step. The CPU's single-thread performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2085, which should handle flight simulation's physics and scenery loading, but the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are simply insufficient for the game's demands at higher resolutions.

The data indicates that the CPU matters more at lower resolutions, where the GPU is less stressed, but even then the GPU still caps the frame rate. At 1080p Low, the 50 FPS average suggests the CPU is doing its part, but the GPU still cannot push past that number. At higher resolutions, the GPU role dominates entirely. The Arc B370's 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs are modest figures, and its memory bandwidth is system dependent, which further limits performance in a game that streams large scenery datasets. In short, this combo is CPU-heavy in terms of capability, but the GPU dictates the playable experience in every scenario tested.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this combination at 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations, which is consistent with the measured frame rates. The rank reflects the severe GPU limitation. A combo ranking this low means the vast majority of other hardware pairs will deliver higher frame rates in this game. The CPU alone would rank much higher, but the pairing drags the overall result down. For context, the CPU's average benchmark score of 46062 is respectable, but the GPU's 1184 average benchmark score is among the lowest recorded. The gap between the two components is the defining characteristic of this setup.

The percentile data reinforces this: the CPU is in the top 11% of all CPUs, while the GPU is in the bottom 5% of all GPUs. This is an extreme imbalance. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy graphics loads and detailed terrain rendering, the GPU's low standing becomes the primary determinant of the combo's rank. The measured FPS at all resolutions and settings confirms that the combo cannot sustain 60 FPS, so the low rank is not a surprise. It is a direct reflection of the hardware's measured behavior in this specific title.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 performs within 0.2% of several other processors. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has an average score of 46030, which is 0.1% lower. The Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, 0.1% higher. The AMD EPYC 4364P scores 45970, 0.2% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7303 scores 45960, also 0.2% lower. These deltas are negligible, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU. If a builder swapped the CPU for one of these alternatives, the measured FPS would remain essentially unchanged, because the GPU is the bottleneck.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are all older or lower-end parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These are all roughly equivalent to the Arc B370 in raw benchmark performance, so a system with any of these GPUs would deliver similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The differences are within 1.4%, which translates to less than 1 FPS in practical terms. A user with a similar CPU and one of these GPUs should expect the same overall experience: below 60 FPS at all resolutions and settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the recorded averages are as follows: Low settings produce 50 FPS average, Medium produces 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS, High produces 30 FPS average, and Ultra produces 28 FPS average. The spread from Low to Ultra is 22 FPS, showing that the GPU struggles to scale with increasing graphical demands. Even at the lowest settings, the average does not reach the 60 FPS target.

At 2560x1440, the averages are lower across the board. Low settings yield 41 FPS, Medium yields 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS, High yields 24 FPS, and Ultra yields 23 FPS. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is significant, with Low falling by 9 FPS and High falling by 6 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 18 FPS, similar to the 1080p spread, but the absolute numbers are all below 45 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the averages are the lowest recorded. Low settings produce 30 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS, High produces 18 FPS, and Ultra produces 17 FPS. The 4K results show a compressed range: the difference between Low and Ultra is just 13 FPS, indicating that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling. At this resolution, even the lowest settings cannot maintain a smooth experience, with the average dipping below 30 FPS. The minimum FPS at 4K Medium is 20, which is borderline stutter territory for a flight simulator.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or settings preset. The verdict by resolution is clear: for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, there are no playable settings that meet or exceed 60 FPS. The best recorded average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is the closest this combo gets to the target, but it still falls short. At 1440p, the best average is 41 FPS at Low settings, and at 4K, the best average is 30 FPS at Low settings.

The data shows a system that is severely GPU-limited. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a strong processor, but the Intel Arc B370 is not capable of driving this game to acceptable frame rates. Even at the lowest settings, the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's output. For a user who already owns this combination, the practical takeaway is that Microsoft Flight Simulator will require significant settings reductions, and even then, the experience will be below the 60 FPS standard. The only way to reach playable performance would be to upgrade the GPU to a more capable model, as the CPU has ample headroom. The recorded data does not support any settings combination that achieves 60 FPS, so the verdict is straightforward: this combo is not suitable for smooth flight simulation at any resolution tested.