Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B370 is a combination that sits at an extreme imbalance. The CPU is a high-end desktop processor with a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the GPU is an integrated graphics solution that ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. This pairing is tested in Microsoft Flight Simulator, a game known for demanding both processing power and graphics throughput. The recorded data shows a system that struggles to reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset level.

FAQ

Q: What is the best preset for this system at 1920x1080?

A: The best recorded average FPS at 1920x1080 is 50 FPS, achieved with the Low preset. Medium delivers 39 FPS, High delivers 30 FPS, and Ultra delivers 28 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 2560x1440?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded at 2560x1440 is 41 FPS with the Low preset. Medium produces 32 FPS, High produces 24 FPS, and Ultra produces 23 FPS. All settings fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K scores 83807, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 83090, which is 1.1% lower. The AMD EPYC 9135 scores 82980, which is 1.2% lower. The AMD EPYC 7F72 scores 85072, which is 1.3% higher.

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

A: The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184 based on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, which is 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: What is the FPS range for Medium settings at 3840x2160?

A: At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the recorded average FPS is 23, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. This is the only resolution and settings combination in the recorded data that includes both minimum and maximum FPS values.

Q: What is the combo rank for this hardware pairing?

A: The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower portion of all tested hardware combinations.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records FPS measurements for four presets at each of three resolutions. The playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS. The data shows no preset at any resolution reaches this threshold. Therefore, the "best settings" are defined as the preset with the highest average FPS, even though it does not meet the playability criterion.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset produces an average of 30 FPS. This is the highest recorded average at this resolution. Medium produces 23 FPS, High produces 18 FPS, and Ultra produces 17 FPS. The Low preset is the only one that approaches a playable frame rate, though it remains exactly half of the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset produces an average of 41 FPS. This is the highest recorded average at this resolution. Medium produces 32 FPS, High produces 24 FPS, and Ultra produces 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 8 FPS. The step from High to Ultra is only 1 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the upper end of the settings range.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces an average of 50 FPS. This is the highest recorded average across all resolutions and settings in the entire dataset. Medium produces 39 FPS, High produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, which is the largest single-step drop observed in the data. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, again showing that the Ultra preset offers little additional visual benefit relative to its performance cost.

The verdict data confirms this analysis. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for any resolution. The bestSettings field is null for all three resolutions, and the avgFpsAtBest field is also null. This indicates that the system fails to meet the 60 FPS threshold at every tested configuration.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It has a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 84003 places it near the top of the database. The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution with a 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 1184 is based on a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

The recorded FPS data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution. The scaling between resolutions demonstrates this clearly. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 50. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average FPS drops to 41. At 3840x2160 with Low settings, the average FPS drops to 30. This represents a 20 FPS drop from 1080p to 2160p, or a 40% reduction in frame rate. The CPU is identical in all three cases, so this scaling is entirely attributable to the GPU's inability to handle higher pixel counts.

The scaling between presets further supports this conclusion. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS (50 to 28). At 2560x1440, the difference between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS (41 to 23). At 3840x2160, the difference between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS (30 to 17). The absolute FPS values are low across the board, which indicates that the GPU is saturated even at the lowest settings. A CPU-bound scenario would show higher FPS at Low settings with a sharp drop when transitioning to higher presets. Instead, the data shows a relatively flat response to preset changes, with Low settings still failing to reach 60 FPS.

The CPU's benchmark scores suggest it is more than capable of handling the simulation's processing demands. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51731 and singlecore score of 7303 place it well above the average CPU. The PassMark multithread score of 60860 and single thread score of 4823 reinforce this. However, these strengths are irrelevant when the GPU cannot render frames quickly enough. The bottleneck is clearly on the graphics side.

The GPU's specifications explain its performance ceiling. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. Its FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS. The memory is system shared, meaning it relies on the CPU's DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bus width and bandwidth are listed as system dependent, which further limits its effectiveness in a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is reasonable for an integrated part, but the sheer lack of dedicated memory bandwidth and the low pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s cap its output.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus are all processors with similar average benchmark scores. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the closest, with a delta of 0.2% lower performance. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is 1.1% lower, the AMD EPYC 9135 is 1.2% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% higher. In practical terms, swapping the 290K Plus for any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The 24-core configuration and high boost clock of the 290K Plus would not provide a meaningful advantage over these rivals in this specific game, given that the GPU is the limiting factor.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc B370 are all older or lower-tier graphics solutions. 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 all within 1.5% of the Arc B370's score, which means any of these GPUs would deliver essentially the same frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the same performance class as these legacy parts.

When considering the full system, the choice of CPU has minimal impact on the final FPS. Any of the four rival CPUs would pair with the Arc B370 to produce nearly identical results. The choice of GPU, however, is critical. A user swapping the Arc B370 for any of its nearest rivals would see no meaningful improvement. The performance class is defined by the GPU, and the Arc B370 sits at the very bottom of the database's GPU rankings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank in game is 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations. This places the system in the bottom 7.7% of all tested hardware configurations. The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation, as only 286 combinations perform worse than this pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The CPU's high percentile ranking does not rescue the overall combo. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, but the combo rank is driven by the GPU's 5th percentile standing. The average benchmark score of the CPU, 84003, is nearly 71 times higher than the GPU's average benchmark score of 1184. This disparity explains why the system performs so poorly in a graphics-intensive game.

The ranking also indicates that most other tested combinations, including those with much weaker CPUs, would outperform this pairing. The GPU is the sole determinant of the combo's position in the database. A system with a mid-range CPU and a discrete GPU would almost certainly rank higher, provided the GPU has a higher percentile than the Arc B370.

The Verdict

The verdict is clear: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable frame rate. The playable threshold is 60 FPS. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The bestSettings field is null for all resolutions, and the avgFpsAtBest field is null as well.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 30 with the Low preset. This is exactly half of the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, the highest average FPS is 41 with the Low preset. At 1920x1080, the highest average FPS is 50 with the Low preset. Even at the lowest resolution and lowest preset, the system falls 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold.

The data indicates that no combination of resolution and settings can achieve smooth gameplay. The system would require a substantial GPU upgrade to reach playable frame rates. The CPU is not the bottleneck, and its high benchmark scores cannot compensate for the integrated GPU's limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following measurements are recorded in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B370.

At 3840x2160, the High preset produces an average of 18 FPS. The Low preset produces an average of 30 FPS. The Medium preset produces an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. The Ultra preset produces an average of 17 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded minimum and maximum values. The spread between the minimum and maximum at Medium is 7 FPS, which indicates moderate frame time variance.

At 2560x1440, the High preset produces an average of 24 FPS. The Low preset produces an average of 41 FPS. The Medium preset produces an average of 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. The Ultra preset produces an average of 23 FPS. The Medium preset again shows a 9 FPS spread between minimum and maximum. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 18 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the High preset produces an average of 30 FPS. The Low preset produces an average of 50 FPS. The Medium preset produces an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. The Ultra preset produces an average of 28 FPS. The Medium preset shows a 12 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, the largest variance recorded in the dataset. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 22 FPS.

The overall pattern across all resolutions is consistent. Lower settings always produce higher average FPS, but even the lowest settings fail to reach 60 FPS. The system is fundamentally limited by the Intel Arc B370's integrated graphics architecture. The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: this combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution or preset.