Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the recorded data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B370 illustrates a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics component. The benchmark results show a combination that struggles to maintain fluid frame rates even at lower resolutions and presets, with no configuration in the database reaching the 60 FPS playable threshold. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance, compares the hardware to its nearest rivals, and provides a clear verdict on what this system can and cannot deliver.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the database shows no settings preset that achieves 60 FPS. The highest average frame rate recorded at this resolution is 30 FPS on the Low preset, which falls far short of the playable threshold. The Medium preset produces an average of 23 FPS, High drops to 18 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. Since no preset clears the 60 FPS mark, there is no "best" playable setting at 4K; the system cannot reach the performance baseline at any quality level.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves only marginally. The Low preset delivers an average of 41 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution but still well below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. Again, no setting is playable by the database's standard, so no recommended preset can be provided.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist in the measured data. The Low preset reaches an average of 50 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the target, but it still misses the mark. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The verdict for 1080p is the same as for higher resolutions: the playable threshold is not reached at any preset, and the best achievable average frame rate remains below 60.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245's nearest rivals in the database, based on average benchmark scores, are closely matched within a narrow band. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 0.4% lower, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 0.5% lower, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H scores 0.6% higher, and the Intel Core i5-14600K scores 0.8% higher. In practical terms, any of these processors would deliver nearly identical CPU-side performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning the frame rate differences between them would be negligible. The CPU is not the limiting factor in this system, so swapping between these chips would not alter the overall experience in a meaningful way.

The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, sits in a dramatically lower performance tier. Its nearest rivals are all much older discrete and mobile graphics solutions: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 is 0.2% faster, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 is 0.5% faster, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M is 0.7% faster, and the AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% slower. These deltas are tiny, indicating that the Arc B370's compute capability is on par with graphics hardware from over a decade ago. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, this means the GPU is the dominant bottleneck, and any system built around this graphics solution will produce frame rates consistent with that older hardware class, regardless of the CPU paired with it.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of how this combination performs across resolutions and presets. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum values. Medium averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High averages 18 FPS with no min/max recorded, and Ultra averages 17 FPS with no min/max recorded. The spread from Low to Ultra is 13 FPS, showing that even reducing quality to its lowest setting cannot lift the frame rate into a comfortable range.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS. The Medium preset's recorded range of 27 to 36 FPS indicates that even within a single scene, the frame rate fluctuates significantly, and the minimum value dips close to the 20s, which would be noticeable as stutter or lag during flight.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The Low preset's 50 FPS average is the single highest result in the entire dataset, but it is still 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 33 FPS, which means even at 1080p Medium, the system can drop to roughly half the target frame rate during demanding moments.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: lowering settings improves performance linearly, but the ceiling is simply too low. From 4K Ultra at 17 FPS to 1080p Low at 50 FPS, the maximum gain from resolution and preset changes combined is 33 FPS, and the system never reaches 60 FPS at any measured configuration.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the playable threshold of 60 FPS at any resolution or preset in the database. The verdict by resolution is unequivocal: for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, the list of playable settings is empty, and no best settings or average FPS values at best are provided. The closest the system comes is 1080p Low with an average of 50 FPS, but that still leaves a 10 FPS deficit.

The data indicates that this combination is fundamentally unsuitable for the game at the target performance level. Even the lightest configuration, 1080p Low, produces an average frame rate that would be borderline at best, and the minimum frame rates recorded at Medium presets suggest that heavier scenes would cause further dips. Flight simulators are known for rendering dense terrain and complex cockpit instrumentation, and the recorded numbers reflect a hardware pairing that cannot keep up with those demands. Users seeking a smooth experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator would need to look at substantially more powerful graphics hardware, as the CPU is clearly not the primary obstacle.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the Intel Arc B370 is stark. The CPU is a modern 14-core, 14-thread Arrow Lake part with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, a 24 MB L3 cache, and a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.8% of its average benchmark score, placing it in a competitive mid-to-high range for desktop processors. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this level of CPU performance is more than sufficient to handle the game's simulation and physics calculations.

The GPU, on the other hand, is the clear bottleneck. The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution with a 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs, a 25 W TDP, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are graphics cards from the HD 5000 and HD 6000 series era, which places its raw compute power far below what a modern flight simulator requires. The scaling across resolutions confirms this: moving from 1080p to 4K at the same preset drops the average FPS by roughly 40 to 50 percent, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario where pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

Preset scaling tells the same story. At 1080p, going from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 50 FPS to 28 FPS, a 44 percent drop. At 1440p, the drop from Low to Ultra is from 41 FPS to 23 FPS, a 44 percent drop. At 4K, the drop is from 30 FPS to 17 FPS, a 43 percent drop. These consistent percentage reductions indicate that the GPU is fully saturated at every resolution, and that any additional load, whether from higher resolution or higher quality settings, directly translates into lower frame rates. The CPU's role becomes secondary; the recorded data shows that the game is not waiting on the processor at any point in this configuration.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this system achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Low preset.

Q: Does this system reach 60 FPS at any setting?

A: No. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, and the 60 FPS threshold is not met at any preset.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is 0.4% slower, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is 0.5% slower, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is 0.6% faster, and the Intel Core i5-14600K is 0.8% faster.

Q: Which component is the main bottleneck for this game?

A: The Intel Arc B370 GPU. It ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are older ATI and AMD graphics solutions, while the CPU ranks in the 90th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the recorded minimum and maximum FPS values?

A: At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS. No min/max values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Q: How does this system rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo rank is 3428 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the lower portion of the database.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 8 percent of all recorded configurations, a position consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile ranking. The CPU's strong 90th percentile standing does little to lift the overall ranking, because the game's performance is dictated almost entirely by the graphics solution.

The recorded data makes it clear that this is a severely GPU-limited system. The Arc B370's benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and its proximity to legacy graphics hardware in the nearest rivals list mean that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the lack of graphics throughput. The rank of 3428 reflects a combination that is built around a modern processor but paired with an integrated GPU that is not designed for demanding 3D workloads. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the result is a system that cannot reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution, and whose best case scenario, 1080p Low at 50 FPS average, remains below the target. Users considering this hardware for the game should expect frame rates in the 17 to 50 FPS range depending on settings, with the understanding that even the most favorable configuration misses the mark.