Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B390 combination delivers a very limited experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The recorded data shows that no tested configuration reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution. This analysis details the measured performance, the roles of the CPU and GPU, and how this combo ranks against other tested hardware.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, the best recorded average FPS is 33, achieved with Low settings. No other preset at this resolution comes close; Medium produces 26 FPS, while both High and Ultra produce 19 FPS. The data shows that even the lowest settings fail to reach 60 FPS, leaving no playable option at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the best recorded average FPS is 45, also with Low settings. Medium settings yield 35 FPS, High yields 26 FPS, and Ultra yields 25 FPS. Again, no preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, so the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist; the best available is Low at 45 FPS, which is still below the playable mark.

At 1920x1080, the best recorded average FPS is 56, with Low settings. This is the closest any configuration comes to 60 FPS, but it still falls short. Medium settings produce 43 FPS, High produces 33 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS. The verdict data confirms that no playable settings exist at any resolution, meaning the 60 FPS threshold is never reached. For users who must run the game, Low at 1080p is the only option that approaches a smooth experience, but benchmark results indicate a 4 FPS deficit remains.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals a heavy dependence on the GPU, but the CPU also shows its limits. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 31 (Ultra) to 56 (Low), a span of 25 FPS. At 2560x1440, the range tightens to 25 to 45 FPS, a span of 20 FPS. At 3840x2160, the range is 19 to 33 FPS, a span of 14 FPS. This narrowing spread as resolution increases suggests that the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher pixel counts, while at lower resolutions the CPU has more influence on the frame rate.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its benchmark scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. The CPU’s percentile versus all CPUs is 90, indicating it is a high-performing processor. However, the Intel Arc B390 is an integrated GPU with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, and its percentile versus all GPUs is just 9. This massive gap suggests the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios.

At 1080p, the difference between Low and Medium settings is 13 FPS (56 vs 43), and between Medium and High it is 10 FPS (43 vs 33). At 1440p, the Low to Medium gap is 10 FPS (45 vs 35), and Medium to High is 9 FPS (35 vs 26). At 4K, the Low to Medium gap is 7 FPS (33 vs 26), and Medium to High is 7 FPS (26 vs 19). The consistent drop with each preset increase, regardless of resolution, indicates that the GPU’s shading units (1536), texture mapping units (48), and render output units (24) are being saturated. The GPU’s FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, which is low for modern gaming, and the recorded data reflects this.

The CPU’s role becomes more apparent when looking at the single-core performance. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy single-threaded workloads, and the Core Ultra 5 245’s Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1952 and R15 single-core score of 468 are respectable. However, the GPU’s limitations dominate. At 1080p Low, the system produces 56 FPS, but the CPU alone could likely push higher if paired with a stronger GPU. At 4K Ultra, the 19 FPS result is almost entirely a GPU constraint, as the pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are insufficient for the load.

In summary, the CPU is more than capable for this game, but the GPU holds the system back at every resolution. The scaling from 1080p to 4K shows a 23 FPS drop at Low settings (56 to 33) and a 12 FPS drop at Ultra (31 to 19), which aligns with the GPU’s limited bandwidth (System Shared memory) and low compute throughput. The CPU’s 24 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support (102.4 GB/s bandwidth) do not compensate for the GPU’s weaknesses.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 33 FPS. No min or max recorded.
• Medium: Average 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS.
• High: Average 19 FPS. No min or max recorded.
• Ultra: Average 19 FPS. No min or max recorded.

The data shows that at 4K, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. The jump from Low to Medium costs 7 FPS, and from Medium to High costs another 7 FPS. High and Ultra produce identical averages of 19 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is completely saturated and additional settings changes have no effect on performance.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 45 FPS. No min or max recorded.
• Medium: Average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS.
• High: Average 26 FPS. No min or max recorded.
• Ultra: Average 25 FPS. No min or max recorded.

At 1440p, the frame rates are higher but still below 60 FPS. Low settings provide a 45 FPS average, which is usable but not smooth by the 60 FPS standard. Medium settings drop to 35 FPS, and the minimum of 30 FPS indicates occasional stutter. High and Ultra are nearly identical, with 26 and 25 FPS respectively, again showing the GPU’s ceiling.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 56 FPS. No min or max recorded.
• Medium: Average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS.
• High: Average 33 FPS. No min or max recorded.
• Ultra: Average 31 FPS. No min or max recorded.

At 1080p, the system comes closest to the 60 FPS target. Low settings yield 56 FPS, which is just 4 FPS short of playable. Medium settings drop to 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS, suggesting frame pacing issues. High and Ultra produce 33 and 31 FPS, respectively. The gap between Low and Medium is 13 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at higher presets.

The recorded data shows no min or max values for Low, High, or Ultra at most resolutions, but the Medium settings at all resolutions include min and max values. This suggests that Medium may be the most variable preset, with frame times fluctuating more than other settings.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The verdict data shows no playable settings at any resolution. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best resolution for this system?

A: The best performance comes from 1920x1080 with Low settings, yielding an average of 56 FPS. However, this is still not playable by the 60 FPS standard. At 2560x1440, the best is 45 FPS (Low), and at 3840x2160, the best is 33 FPS (Low).

Q: How does the CPU compare to the GPU in this system?

A: The CPU is very strong, with a percentile of 90 versus all CPUs and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924. The GPU is very weak, with a percentile of 9 versus all GPUs and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482. The GPU is the primary bottleneck.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Intel Arc B390?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (average score 1463, 1.3% slower), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower). All of these are also low-end GPUs.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (average score 49196, 0.4% faster), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% faster), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% slower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% slower). These CPUs have similar average benchmark scores.

Q: Does the system perform better at lower resolutions?

A: Yes. The data shows a clear trend: lower resolutions yield higher frame rates. At 1080p Low, the average is 56 FPS; at 1440p Low, it is 45 FPS; and at 4K Low, it is 33 FPS. This indicates the GPU’s rendering load decreases with resolution.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the Intel Core Ultra 5 245, the nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (average score 49196, 0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% higher), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% lower), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% lower). These processors would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning the bottleneck would remain the GPU. If a user swapped the CPU for any of these, the frame rates would likely stay the same, since the Core Ultra 5 245 is already far ahead of the GPU’s capabilities.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest rivals are all NVIDIA integrated or low-end discrete GPUs: the GeForce GT 520MX (average score 1463, 1.3% higher), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% higher), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% higher), and GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% higher). These GPUs have similar 3DMark Steel Nomad scores, so they would produce comparable frame rates in this game. The data shows that all of these GPUs are in the bottom 10th percentile, so any of them would struggle to maintain 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The performance difference between the Arc B390 and its closest rival, the GT 520MX, is only 1.3%, which is negligible in real-world gameplay.

The CPU’s nearest rivals have average benchmark scores within 1% of each other, so the choice among them would not change the gaming outcome. The GPU’s nearest rivals are similarly clustered, with deltas ranging from 1.3% to 2.7%. This means that a system with any of these CPUs paired with any of these GPUs would exhibit the same fundamental issue: the GPU cannot handle the game’s demands.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems. The rank reflects the GPU’s severe limitation; the CPU’s high percentile (90) does not offset the GPU’s low percentile (9). The combo is ranked lower than 411 other combinations, meaning that most tested PCs deliver better performance in this game.

The rank is consistent with the measured FPS data. A combo that averages 56 FPS at best cannot be expected to rank highly when many other systems reach 60 FPS or above. The data shows that the GPU’s 3DMark score of 1482 is a major outlier compared to modern gaming GPUs, and this directly impacts the rank.

For context, the combo ranks in the bottom 12% (3302/3714), which is a poor result. Even entry-level discrete GPUs from a decade ago, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (a nearest rival), would likely produce similar or slightly better performance, but still not reach 60 FPS. The rank would improve if the GPU were replaced with a stronger model, but with the current hardware, the system is firmly in the lowest tier of performers for this game.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution. The verdict by resolution shows no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

At 1920x1080, the best average FPS is 56 with Low settings, which is 4 FPS short of the target. This is the only configuration that comes close, but it still fails to meet the 60 FPS standard. Medium, High, and Ultra all produce averages below 45 FPS, making them unplayable.

At 2560x1440, the best average FPS is 45 with Low settings, and at 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 33 with Low settings. Both are far below 60 FPS, and higher presets yield even worse results.

The root cause is the Intel Arc B390’s performance. With a percentile of 9 versus all GPUs and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, it is one of the weakest GPUs in the database. The CPU, Intel Core Ultra 5 245, is not the issue; its percentile of 90 and strong multi-core scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core 32924) indicate it is more than capable.

For users with this combination, the only way to play Microsoft Flight Simulator is to accept frame rates well below 60 FPS or to lower the resolution to 1080p and use Low settings for a near-playable experience. However, the recorded data shows that even then, the system fails to reach the playable threshold. This combo is not recommended for this game, as the GPU is a fundamental bottleneck that no settings change can overcome.