Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 lands at position 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the bottom 8% of all recorded combos, a striking result given how capable the CPU appears in isolation. The processor itself sits at the 96th percentile against all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 93785, yet the graphics solution drags the overall gaming performance down dramatically. The Arc B370, by contrast, rests at just the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This is a pairing of extremes, a top-tier processor yoked to a graphics component that ranks among the weakest in the database.

The rank of 3428 out of 3714 means roughly 286 combinations perform worse, but more importantly, 3427 perform better. In a flight simulator that stresses both scenery rendering and CPU-bound physics and flight models, this pairing struggles to find playable ground at any resolution. The data records no playable settings at 3840x2160, none at 2560x1440, and none at 1920x1080, with the playable threshold set at 60 FPS. The best average FPS recorded across all resolutions and settings is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which still falls short of that threshold. The combination rank reflects this systemic shortfall rather than a single weak point.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The recorded data shows no resolution and no settings preset that reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest average FPS observed is 50 at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, nearly identical to the Intel Xeon 6520P at 93786 (0% difference). It trails the AMD EPYC 4564P by 1.5%, the AMD EPYC 9175F by 1.9%, and the AMD EPYC 4565P by 2.1%.

Q: What is the best recorded FPS result for this combo?

A: The best average FPS is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, and 39 FPS at 1920x1080 Medium.

Q: How does the GPU rank against other graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its closest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher). The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: Is there any setting at 4K that reaches 30 FPS?

A: At 3840x2160, Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum values. Medium settings average 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

Q: What does the verdict data say about playable settings?

A: The verdictByResolution data lists empty playable settings arrays for all three resolutions, meaning no preset at any resolution clears the 60 FPS threshold. The best settings and average FPS at best are both recorded as null.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly low. Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS with no min or max recorded. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings drop to 18 FPS average, and Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, which indicates that even reducing graphical load substantially only recovers a modest frame rate gain at this resolution. The 4K data suggests the Arc B370 is overwhelmed at this pixel count regardless of the preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern improves but remains far from playable. Low settings reach 41 FPS average, 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 here is 18 FPS, a wider spread than at 4K, which hints that the GPU has a bit more headroom to respond to settings changes at this resolution. Still, even the best case at 1440p falls 19 FPS short of the 60 FPS target.

At 1920x1080, the combo records its strongest results. Low settings hit 50 FPS average, Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS, the largest settings spread in the dataset. This suggests that at 1080p, the GPU is less saturated and settings choices have more impact, but the ceiling remains below the playability line. The minimum FPS recorded at 1080p Medium is 33, which is still well under the 60 FPS threshold and indicates that frame pacing would be inconsistent in dense scenery or crowded airspace.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are all server-class processors, which contextualizes the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus as a high-end compute part. The Intel Xeon 6520P matches it almost exactly with a 0% delta at 93786 average score. The AMD EPYC 4564P is 1.5% faster, the AMD EPYC 9175F is 1.9% faster, and the AMD EPYC 4565P is 2.1% faster. For gaming purposes, any of these CPUs would deliver virtually identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning the bottleneck would remain firmly with the graphics card.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are all legacy mobile and desktop parts from over a decade ago. 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, all within roughly 1.6 percentage points of each other. A user swapping between any of these GPUs would see essentially no difference in Microsoft Flight Simulator performance. The practical takeaway is that the Arc B370 behaves like an entry-level graphics solution from an older generation, and the recorded frame rates reflect that positioning.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best recorded average is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is the only 4K preset that even touches the halfway point to the playable threshold. The verdict data confirms that no playable settings exist at this resolution, with the best settings field left null.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. No settings preset clears 60 FPS, and the verdict records no playable options. The best average is 41 FPS at Low, which is the closest this resolution comes to playability but still 19 FPS short.

At 1920x1080, the best average is 50 FPS at Low settings. Medium produces 39 FPS, High produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold, and the verdict records no playable settings at 1080p either. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist in the dataset, because no preset reaches that level at any resolution.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the playable threshold of 60 FPS at any resolution or settings preset. The verdictByResolution fields list empty playable settings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, with best settings and average FPS at best both null. The highest recorded average across the entire measurement set is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS below the threshold. At 1440p, the best case is 41 FPS, and at 4K it is 30 FPS. Users would have to accept either a reduced visual experience at sub-60 frame rates or look to different hardware entirely. The combo rank of 3428 out of 3714 reinforces the verdict, placing this pairing far down the list of viable Microsoft Flight Simulator configurations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor in this combo is stark. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 96th percentile CPU with strong multi-threaded and single-threaded scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 and a single-core score of 2439. The Arc B370 is a 5th percentile GPU with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which renders vast terrain, detailed aircraft models, and complex weather systems, the GPU becomes the limiting factor at every resolution.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this. At 4K Low, the combo averages 30 FPS. Dropping the resolution to 1440p Low raises the average to 41 FPS, a 37% improvement. Dropping further to 1080p Low raises it to 50 FPS, another 22% gain. These resolution-based gains are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario, where lowering pixel count directly relieves the bottleneck. The CPU is not the constraint here, because the same processor would deliver far higher frame rates with a stronger GPU.

Settings scaling tells a similar story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, from Medium to High costs 9 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. The diminishing returns at Ultra suggest the GPU is running out of compute headroom. At 4K, the settings spread is compressed, with only 13 FPS separating Low from Ultra, which indicates the GPU is saturated even at Low. At 1440p, the spread widens to 18 FPS, and at 1080p it widens further to 22 FPS, showing that lower resolutions give the GPU enough slack to respond to settings changes. The CPU's role is essentially constant across all these configurations, providing ample headroom that the Arc B370 never allows it to use. In this pairing, the GPU dictates every outcome, and the recorded data shows no scenario where the processor becomes the deciding factor.