Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 11% of all recorded configurations, which is a clear indicator of severe performance limitations. The ranking reflects the substantial bottleneck created by the graphics solution, which sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The CPU, by contrast, performs admirably, landing in the 93rd percentile among all processors. The disparity between these two components explains the overall ranking: the system is held back almost entirely by the integrated graphics, not the processor.

The recorded data shows the Arc B390 achieves an average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in the GPU database are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, which is 1.3% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (score 1460, which is 1.5% slower). The GT 625 OEM and GT 710 are also close, at 2.5% and 2.7% faster respectively. These are all low-end, older graphics parts, which contextualizes the Arc B390's position as an entry-level integrated solution. On the CPU side, the Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, with its nearest rival being the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823 (0.3% faster), followed by the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 64438 (0.3% slower), and the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 (0.7% slower). The processor is a strong, modern desktop part, but the graphics side is the limiting factor.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint across all tested resolutions and presets. The Arc B390 is an integrated solution with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, featuring 1536 shading units and a peak FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is heavily graphics-dependent, this hardware simply does not have the rendering capacity to push high frame rates.

Looking at the scaling between resolutions, the performance drops sharply as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with High settings, the average frame rate is 33 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset, the average drops to 26 FPS, a 21% reduction. At 3840x2160, it further drops to 19 FPS, a 42% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This scaling behavior is expected when the GPU is the limiting resource, as the number of pixels grows significantly with each step up in resolution.

The CPU's role is relatively minor in this configuration, as its strong benchmark scores do not translate into higher frame rates. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores, 20 threads, a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42216. This is more than sufficient for the simulation logic of the game. The data shows that even at 1080p Low settings, the system only reaches 56 FPS average, which is still below the 60 FPS threshold. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see frame rates plateau at higher resolutions, but instead we see them continue to drop. This confirms that the GPU is the bottleneck at all tested configurations.

Best Settings per Resolution

According to the database, no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict field for all three resolutions lists no playable settings. The recorded data shows the closest approach to 60 FPS is at 1920x1080 with Low settings, where the average frame rate is 56 FPS. This is 4 FPS short of the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields an average of 45 FPS. At 3840x2160, the Low preset yields an average of 33 FPS. Since no preset achieves 60 FPS or higher, the best settings per resolution is technically none, but the data indicates that the most demanding preset that comes close is Low at 1080p with an average of 56 FPS.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that approaches playability. The Medium preset at the same resolution drops to 43 FPS average, and High falls to 33 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low preset is 45 FPS, and at 4K it is 33 FPS. This trend shows that the system is only suitable for the lowest visual settings and the lowest resolution for anything close to an acceptable experience, though it still falls short of the 60 FPS target.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database shows that no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS average threshold. The closest is Low at 1920x1080 with an average of 56 FPS, which is below the target.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo?

A: The best resolution is 1920x1080, as it yields the highest average frame rates across all presets. The Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this combination.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482. It is 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463) and 1.5% faster than the GeForce 800M (score 1460). It is slower than the GT 625 OEM by 2.5% and slower than the GT 710 by 2.7%.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42216, while the GPU only ranks in the 9th percentile. The frame rates drop consistently with resolution increases, indicating GPU limitation.

Q: What is the average frame rate at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: The average frame rate is 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS, based on the recorded data.

Q: Are there any playable settings at 4K resolution?

A: No. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings at 3840x2160. The highest average at 4K is 33 FPS with Low settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data provides a complete matrix of average frame rates across three resolutions and four presets.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 33 FPS. The Medium preset averages 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. The High preset averages 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset also averages 19 FPS. No minimum or maximum values are recorded for the High and Ultra presets in the data.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The High preset averages 26 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. Again, no minimum or maximum values are recorded for High and Ultra.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. The High preset averages 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. The data shows no minimum or maximum values for High and Ultra at this resolution either.

The progression is consistent: every step up in resolution or preset reduces the average frame rate. The difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is significant, ranging from 18 FPS at 1080p (56 vs 31) to 14 FPS at 4K (37 vs 19). The difference between 1080p and 4K at the same preset is also substantial, ranging from 21 FPS at Low (56 vs 37) to 12 FPS at High (33 vs 19).

The Verdict

The data is clear: this combination cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any of the tested resolutions. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best average frame rate across all configurations is 56 FPS at 1080p with Low settings, which falls 4 FPS short of the target. At 1440p, the best average is 45 FPS at Low settings. At 4K, the best average is 37 FPS at Low settings.

The system is not capable of delivering a smooth experience in this demanding flight simulator. The GPU is the clear limiting factor. While the CPU is a high-performance desktop part, the integrated graphics cannot handle the rendering load of this game at any resolution. The result is a configuration that is unsuitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as none of the tested settings achieve a playable frame rate.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all high-performance server or desktop parts. The AMD EPYC 4464P is 0.3% faster in average score, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is 0.3% slower, and the AMD EPYC 7343 is 0.7% slower, while the AMD EPYC 9124 is 0.7% faster. These differences are negligible, so any of these processors would produce nearly identical results in this game when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are all older, low-end NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX is 1.3% faster, the GeForce 800M is 1.5% faster, the GeForce GT 625 OEM is 2.5% faster, and the GeForce GT 710 is 2.7% faster. These are all close in performance, meaning that swapping the Arc B390 for any of these would result in a similar overall experience: frame rates well below 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows that none of these alternatives would meaningfully change the outcome, as they all fall within a few points of the same score.

The conclusion is that the CPU has plenty of headroom, but the GPU side is the anchor. For a user looking for similar behavior, any of these rival GPUs would offer a comparable experience, and the CPU choice among the listed rivals would have no noticeable impact on the game's performance.