Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the recorded data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 paired with the Intel Arc B390 reflects that reality at every resolution tested. The measurements cover three resolutions and four quality presets, and the pattern is consistent: this combination struggles to reach the 60 FPS playable threshold anywhere, with the closest approach coming at 1080p on Low settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are firmly in slideshow territory. The Low preset delivers an average of 33 FPS, which is the best figure at this resolution. Dropping to Medium reduces the average to 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS recorded. Both High and Ultra presets tie at an average of 19 FPS, showing that the GPU is saturated well before the CPU becomes a limiting factor. None of these figures approach playability, and even the most forgiving preset at 4K leaves a massive gap to the 60 FPS target.

Moving to 2560x1440 improves the situation only modestly. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is the single highest average across all resolutions and settings in the entire dataset. Medium drops to 35 FPS, with the recorded range spanning 30 to 40 FPS. High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The spread between Low and Medium at 1440p is 10 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 9 FPS, suggesting that each step up in quality carries a meaningful rendering cost. Still, no preset at this resolution clears the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the numbers improve further but remain short of 60 FPS. The Low preset averages 56 FPS, just 4 FPS below the playable threshold. Medium averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration in the entire dataset that comes within striking distance of 60 FPS, but it still misses the mark. The margin between the best-case average and the target is small enough to be frustrating for anyone hoping for a smooth experience.

The data shows a clear scaling pattern. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average drops from 56 to 45 FPS, a loss of 11 FPS. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, the average falls from 45 to 33 FPS, another 12 FPS reduction. The resolution scaling is consistent and predictable, which indicates a GPU-bound workload across the board. The min and max values recorded only for the Medium preset at each resolution reinforce this: the 4K Medium range is 22 to 30 FPS, 1440p Medium is 30 to 40 FPS, and 1080p Medium is 37 to 50 FPS. These ranges are tight and show no severe frame-time spikes, but the overall performance level is simply too low for this game at these settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46062. Its nearest rivals are closely packed. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 scores 46030, which is 0.1% behind. The Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, putting it 0.1% ahead. The AMD EPYC 4364P scores 45970, 0.2% behind, and the AMD EPYC 7303 scores 45960, also 0.2% behind. These deltas are negligible in real-world gaming. Any of these processors would feed a discrete GPU in essentially the same way, so the CPU is not the bottleneck in this pairing.

The GPU tells a very different story. The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1482. Its nearest rivals are all entry-level NVIDIA parts from years ago. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, 1.3% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% behind. The Arc B390 is the fastest of this group, but only by a small margin. For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, any of these GPUs would produce similar frame rates, meaning a swap between them would not change the playability verdict.

The disparity between the CPU and GPU rankings is stark. The processor is a strong modern part, while the graphics solution is effectively an integrated-class component. In this pairing, the GPU is the limiting factor by a wide margin. If a user were to pair this CPU with a substantially faster discrete GPU, the results would be entirely different, but with the Arc B390, the ceiling is low.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data indicates that this game is overwhelmingly GPU-bound with this combination. The evidence is in the scaling between resolutions and presets. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS, from 56 down to 31 FPS. At 1440p, the same preset swing costs 20 FPS, from 45 down to 25 FPS. At 4K, the swing is 14 FPS, from 33 down to 19 FPS. As resolution increases, the absolute FPS drops and the gap between presets narrows, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited scenario. The GPU is running out of shading and texture throughput long before the CPU has to work hard.

The CPU, on the other hand, has ample headroom. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a 14-core, 14-thread Arrow Lake part with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz and a 24 MB shared L3 cache. Its benchmark scores place it in the top 11% of all CPUs. In a flight simulator that relies heavily on single-thread performance for physics and scenery loading, this processor is far more capable than the frame rates suggest. The game is not asking more of the CPU than it can deliver, but the GPU cannot keep up with even modest rendering demands.

At 1080p Low, the CPU is doing most of the work, and the system still only reaches 56 FPS. At 4K Ultra, the GPU is overwhelmed and delivers 19 FPS. The CPU is essentially irrelevant to the outcome once the resolution and settings climb. For users considering this combo, the takeaway is clear: upgrading the GPU would yield dramatic gains, while upgrading the CPU would yield almost nothing in this title.

The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator has a clear answer based on the measured data: no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

At 4K, the best average is 33 FPS on Low, which is barely half of the target. At 1440p, the best average is 45 FPS on Low, an improvement but still 15 FPS short. At 1080p, the best average is 56 FPS on Low, just 4 FPS below the threshold. Even in the most favorable configuration, the system misses 60 FPS, and any increase in quality makes the situation worse.

The practical implication is that this combination cannot deliver a smooth experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator under any tested condition. Users who want to play this game would need a more capable GPU to pair with the Core Ultra 5 235. The CPU itself is not the problem, but the Arc B390, with its 9th percentile ranking, is far below what this title demands.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing ranks 3302 out of 3714 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems. The rank reflects the severe GPU limitation, not the CPU capability. The processor alone ranks in the 89th percentile, but the graphics solution ranks in the 9th percentile, and the combined result lands near the bottom of the overall distribution.

The rank is consistent with the FPS data. A system that cannot reach 60 FPS at 1080p Low is going to sit near the bottom of any ranking, regardless of how strong its CPU is. The 3302 rank out of 3714 means there are 412 tested combinations that perform worse, but there are also thousands that perform better. For a game as demanding as Microsoft Flight Simulator, this combo is not competitive.

Best Settings per Resolution

The best settings per resolution are determined by the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS. According to the recorded data, no preset at any resolution achieves this. The verdictByResolution field confirms that there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, and the avgFpsAtBest value is null for all three resolutions.

The closest configuration is 1920x1080 on Low, with an average of 56 FPS. This is the highest average in the entire dataset, but it still falls short of the playable threshold. At 2560x1440 on Low, the average is 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 on Low, the average is 33 FPS. Each step down in resolution brings the system closer to playability, but none of them cross the line.

For users who must play this game with this hardware, the only viable approach is 1080p on Low, accepting that the average FPS will hover in the mid-50s rather than reaching 60. Even then, the lack of min and max data for the Low preset means the frame-time consistency is unknown, and dips below the average are likely during dense scenery or weather events. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS, which is safer in terms of consistency but further from the target. The data does not support a recommendation for any preset as truly playable, but 1080p Low is the least bad option.