Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 combination shows a consistently demanding workload across all tested resolutions and presets. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the measurements indicate that this system falls short of that mark in every configuration tested.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest of the three resolutions. The Low preset delivers an average of 33 FPS, which is the highest average recorded at this resolution. Medium settings produce an average of 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. Both High and Ultra presets average 19 FPS, with no separate minimum or maximum values recorded for either setting. The data shows a clear pattern: as visual fidelity increases, frame rates decline sharply, and even the least demanding preset cannot approach the 60 FPS target.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance improves but remains far below the playable threshold. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, representing the best result at this resolution. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a recorded range of 30 to 40 FPS. High settings average 26 FPS, while Ultra drops to 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the upper end of the settings spectrum.

At 1920x1080, the system reaches its highest frame rates, but still does not achieve 60 FPS on any preset. The Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the playable threshold. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings average 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium represents a 13 FPS drop, while moving from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS.

The overall pattern across all resolutions is consistent: this hardware combination is heavily constrained by the GPU, and the Intel Arc B390's integrated nature limits performance to sub-60 FPS levels throughout. The data does not include any configuration that reaches the playable threshold, and the verdict field confirms that no playable settings exist at any resolution.

Best Settings per Resolution

Based on the recorded data, no preset at any resolution achieves an average of 60 FPS or higher. The verdict by resolution lists empty playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, with no best settings identified for any resolution.

For 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays closest to 60 FPS is Low, which averages 33 FPS. However, since the playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, this does not qualify as a playable setting. The same applies to 2560x1440, where Low averages 45 FPS, and to 1920x1080, where Low averages 56 FPS.

The data reveals that the 1920x1080 Low preset is the only configuration within 4 FPS of the 60 FPS target. This is the closest result in the entire dataset, but it still falls short. Every other preset and resolution combination shows a gap of at least 15 FPS from the playable threshold.

The absence of playable settings across all resolutions is a decisive finding. Users seeking 60 FPS or higher would need to consider alternative hardware, as no in-game settings adjustment can bridge the gap observed in these measurements.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data indicates that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck in this system for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463 and a delta of 1.3%, the NVIDIA GeForce 800M with 1460 and a delta of 1.5%, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM with 1446 and a delta of 2.5%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 with 1443 and a delta of 2.7%. These are all entry-level or legacy components, confirming that the Arc B390 operates at the very low end of the GPU performance spectrum.

The CPU, by contrast, is a high-end desktop processor. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35850 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2020 in single-core, with an average benchmark score of 70879. It sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P with a delta of -0.2%, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 with -0.7%, the Intel Core i7-14700KF with 1%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with 1.3%. This CPU is clearly not the limiting factor.

The scaling between resolutions provides further evidence of the GPU bottleneck. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same preset averages 45 FPS, a drop of 11 FPS or roughly 20%. At 3840x2160, Low averages 33 FPS, another 12 FPS decline. This resolution scaling is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly reduces frame rates.

Preset scaling within each resolution also points to GPU limitations. At 1920x1080, the jump from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, from Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. The smaller gap between High and Ultra suggests that the GPU is already saturated, and additional visual features have diminishing impact on frame rates. At 3840x2160, the difference between High and Ultra is zero, with both averaging 19 FPS, further confirming that the GPU is fully utilized.

The CPU's capability is evident in the absolute frame rates, which remain playable in other contexts but are constrained here by the GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K's 20 cores and 20 threads, along with its 30 MB shared L3 cache, provide ample processing power for flight simulation logic, but the Arc B390 cannot translate that CPU headroom into higher frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU, the nearest rivals based on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 scores are all NVIDIA products from older generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% below the Arc B390's 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. Any of these GPUs would produce similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning they would also fall short of the 60 FPS threshold across all resolutions.

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are substantially more powerful than the GPU alternatives. The Intel Xeon 6511P has an average benchmark score of 71051, which is 0.2% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265K's 70879. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 scores 71370, 0.7% higher. The Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163, 1% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69996, 1.3% lower. These CPUs would perform nearly identically in this game when paired with the same GPU, since the bottleneck is overwhelmingly on the graphics side.

The combination of a high-end CPU with a low-end GPU creates a system where CPU upgrades would yield no measurable benefit in this title. The recorded frame rates would remain essentially unchanged with any of the listed rival CPUs, as the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to utilize additional CPU performance.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any setting at any resolution. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS, and the highest average frame rate recorded across the entire dataset is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

The closest configuration to playable is 1920x1080 Low, which averages 56 FPS. This is 4 FPS below the threshold, and even this marginal shortfall cannot be overcome through settings adjustments. The next closest is 2560x1440 Low at 45 FPS, a 15 FPS gap, and 3840x2160 Low at 33 FPS, a 27 FPS gap.

The system ranks 3302 out of 3714 combinations in the game-specific database, placing it in the bottom 11% of tested configurations. This ranking reflects the GPU's 9th percentile performance, which dominates the overall result despite the CPU's 94th percentile standing.

For users considering this hardware combination, the data is clear: Microsoft Flight Simulator will not deliver a smooth experience at any resolution. The game is playable in the sense that it runs, but frame rates below 60 FPS across all settings mean the experience will involve noticeable stutter and reduced fluidity. The GPU must be upgraded to a more capable discrete component to achieve the playable threshold.

FAQ

Q: Can the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. No configuration in the dataset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best performing setting for this system?

A: The 1920x1080 Low preset delivers the highest average frame rate at 56 FPS. This is the closest any settings combination comes to the playable threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to similar GPUs?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463, GeForce 800M at 1460, GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446, and GeForce GT 710 at 1443, all within 2.7% of its score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K ranks in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Resolution scaling shows frame rates dropping from 56 FPS at 1920x1080 Low to 33 FPS at 3840x2160 Low, a pattern consistent with GPU-bound performance.

Q: Are there any playable settings at 2560x1440 or 3840x2160?

A: No. At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS on Low settings. At 3840x2160, the best result is 33 FPS on Low settings. Both fall well short of the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What would happen if the CPU were replaced with a similar performing model?

A: Frame rates would remain essentially unchanged. The nearest CPU rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-14700KF with a 1% lower average score or the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with a 1.3% lower score, would produce nearly identical results because the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to benefit from additional CPU performance.