Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator is notoriously demanding, and the recorded data for this Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the Intel Arc B390 confirms that this combination struggles to maintain playable frame rates across the board. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and no tested configuration reaches that mark. The measurements cover three resolutions and four quality presets, with average FPS recorded for every combination, though minimum and maximum values were only captured for Medium settings.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently low. Low settings produce an average of 33 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings drop to 26 FPS average, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. Both High and Ultra settings average 19 FPS, showing that the most demanding presets essentially halve the frame rate compared to Low. The gap between Medium and High at 4K is a steep 7 FPS, indicating that the rendering load from higher quality assets and effects is significant at this pixel count.

Moving to 2560x1440, the picture improves modestly but remains far from the 60 FPS target. Low settings average 45 FPS, which is 12 FPS higher than the 4K Low result. Medium averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High averages 26 FPS, while Ultra averages 25 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional demands are not the primary bottleneck at this resolution; rather, the GPU is already saturated. The jump from Low to Medium costs 10 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 9 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings average 56 FPS, just 4 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The scaling from 1440p to 1080p is roughly linear: Low improves by 11 FPS, Medium by 8 FPS, High by 7 FPS, and Ultra by 6 FPS. Interestingly, the gap between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 2 FPS, mirroring the 1440p pattern where the top two presets converge. The data indicates that even at 1080p Low, this hardware cannot consistently hold 60 FPS, and the minimum FPS on Medium falls to 37, which would be noticeable in a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is essential.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is clear: the Arc B390's performance ceiling is reached well before the Ultra 7 270K's processing headroom is exhausted. The average FPS figures are consistently below 60, and the minimum FPS values only exist for Medium settings, where they sit 18 to 23 FPS below the threshold. This suggests that any preset above Low at any resolution will result in a sub-60 FPS experience, and even Low at 1080p cannot guarantee the target.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database's nearest rival data places this CPU and GPU in starkly different performance tiers. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tested. Its nearest rivals are all server-class processors: the Intel Xeon 6520P scores 93786, a delta of 0%, meaning the two are statistically identical. The AMD EPYC 4564P scores 95183, which is 1.5% higher, and the AMD EPYC 9175F scores 95615, 1.9% higher. The AMD EPYC 4565P scores 95764, 2.1% higher. These are extremely close margins, indicating that the Ultra 7 270K Plus delivers compute performance comparable to high-end enterprise silicon, though none of these rivals are gaming-focused parts.

The Intel Arc B390 presents a very different picture. Its average benchmark score is 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs tested. The nearest rivals are all low-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower, the GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower, the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These deltas are small, but the absolute scores are tiny compared to modern discrete graphics cards. The B390's nearest peers are entry-level mobile and OEM parts from over a decade ago, which contextualizes why the measured FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator is so low.

For a user considering alternatives, the data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game. Any of the rival CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates because they all sit within 2.1% of each other in raw compute. The GPU, however, is the bottleneck. Swapping the Arc B390 for a part with a higher percentile ranking would yield substantial FPS gains, whereas upgrading the CPU would yield almost nothing in this specific title. The GPU's nearest rivals all score below 1500, and the delta percentages are small, meaning that choosing any of those alternatives would not meaningfully change the gaming experience; they would all struggle identically. The database shows no measured FPS data for those rival GPUs, but their benchmark scores imply they would land in the same sub-60 FPS territory.

FAQ

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

A: No. The measured data shows no configuration reaches 60 FPS. The best result is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average is 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it drops to 33 FPS.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average FPS is 56, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 93785 in the database's average benchmark. The Intel Xeon 6520P matches it at 93786, while the AMD EPYC 4564P is 1.5% higher, the AMD EPYC 9175F is 1.9% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4565P is 2.1% higher.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, 1.3% lower, the GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower, the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. The measured FPS scaling across resolutions and presets aligns with GPU-bound behavior: frame rates drop sharply as resolution increases, and the CPU has ample headroom.

Q: What minimum FPS was recorded?

A: Minimum FPS values were only recorded for Medium settings. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum is 22 FPS, at 2560x1440 Medium it is 30 FPS, and at 1920x1080 Medium it is 37 FPS.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset tested. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best average FPS across all measurements is 56 at 1080p Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p, the best result is 45 FPS, and at 4K, it is 33 FPS, both far below playable.

For users who can tolerate frame rates below 60, the experience would be smoothest at 1080p Low, where the average is 56 FPS. However, even that setting dips below 60 at times, and the minimum FPS for Medium at 1080p is 37, indicating significant frame time variance. At 1440p and 4K, the average FPS across all presets ranges from 19 to 45, which would feel sluggish in a flight simulator that relies on smooth horizon movement and cockpit interactions. The verdict is clear: this combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS target.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Intel Arc B390 is heavily skewed toward the GPU being the bottleneck. The CPU's average benchmark score of 93785 places it in the 96th percentile, meaning it has far more compute power than most desktop processors. The GPU's score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile, meaning it is weaker than 91% of tested GPUs. In a GPU-bound title like Microsoft Flight Simulator, this mismatch becomes apparent in the scaling data.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 19 to 33 across presets. The jump from Low to Medium costs 7 FPS, and Medium to High costs another 7 FPS. This steep decline with preset quality indicates that the GPU is overwhelmed by the pixel count and shading work. At 2560x1440, the range is 25 to 45 FPS, with a 10 FPS drop from Low to Medium and a 9 FPS drop from Medium to High. At 1920x1080, the range is 31 to 56 FPS, with an 11 FPS drop from Low to Medium and a 10 FPS drop from Medium to High. The consistent pattern of large drops when moving from Low to Medium, and smaller drops when moving from High to Ultra, suggests that the GPU's memory bandwidth and shading resources are exhausted early.

The CPU's role is more evident in the single-threaded and multi-threaded benchmarks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 44253, and the single-core score is 2439, both strong results. In a flight simulator that simulates weather, physics, and AI traffic, this CPU would handle those calculations without breaking a sweat. The measured FPS does not change dramatically between resolutions in a way that would implicate the CPU; rather, the FPS scales with pixel count and preset quality, which are GPU-driven variables. The data implies that upgrading the GPU would produce immediate and substantial FPS gains, while upgrading the CPU would produce negligible gains in this specific game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for this CPU and GPU pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator is 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested hardware pairings for this game. The rank reflects the GPU's severe performance deficit, as the CPU alone would rank far higher if paired with a stronger graphics card. The database's percentile data supports this: the CPU sits at the 96th percentile, while the GPU sits at the 9th percentile.

A rank of 3302 means that 3301 other combinations delivered higher average FPS in this game. This is not surprising given the measured FPS figures, which never reach 60 at any resolution or preset. The combination's position near the bottom of the ranking is driven entirely by the Arc B390's low compute throughput. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals all score below 1500 in the database's benchmark, and those parts are from NVIDIA's entry-level lineup. If a user were to pair the same CPU with a mid-range or high-end GPU, the combo rank would climb dramatically, but as recorded, this pairing is one of the weaker options for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, so there is no "best" setting in the sense of meeting the playable threshold. The highest average FPS is 33 at Low settings, but this is still 27 FPS below the target. The database's verdictByResolution field confirms that no playable settings exist at this resolution, with a null value for best settings and average FPS at best.

At 2560x1440, the situation is identical. Low settings produce the highest average at 45 FPS, which is 15 FPS below the threshold. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. None of these are playable, and the verdict field again shows no playable settings.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target. This is the best possible experience with this hardware, though it still misses the threshold by 4 FPS. Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The verdict field lists no playable settings here either, meaning even the best configuration does not clear the bar. For users who must play this game on this hardware, 1080p Low is the only reasonable choice, as it offers the highest average FPS and avoids the deeper frame rate dips seen at higher presets. The data suggests that lowering resolution further or reducing internal rendering scale would be required to approach 60 FPS, but those options were not part of the measured configurations.