Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data for this combination of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B390 graphics shows a system that is severely constrained by its graphics processor in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Across all tested resolutions and presets, the measured frame rates fall well below the 60 FPS playable threshold defined in the database. The recorded average FPS figures range from 19 at the most demanding setting to 56 at the most forgiving, indicating a consistent inability to reach a smooth, playable experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results provide a clear picture of performance across three resolutions and four quality presets. The data shows a linear scaling where lower resolutions and lower settings yield higher frame rates, but no configuration achieves the target of 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, performance is limited. The Low preset produces an average of 33 FPS. Moving to Medium, the average drops to 26 FPS, with recorded minimum and maximum values of 22 and 30 FPS respectively. The High and Ultra presets both yield an identical average of 19 FPS, indicating that the graphics processor is the limiting factor even before the most demanding settings are applied. No minimum or maximum values were recorded for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates improve but remain far from playable. The Low preset averages 45 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings produce an average of 26 FPS, while Ultra drops to 25 FPS. The pattern mirrors the 4K results, with diminishing returns as settings increase and a clear ceiling imposed by the graphics solution.

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system shows its best performance. The Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across all tests. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 37 and 50 FPS. The High preset averages 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. Even at this resolution and with the least demanding preset, the average frame rate sits just below the 60 FPS threshold, confirming the hardware's inability to deliver a fluid experience.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the database identifies the most demanding preset that would keep the average frame rate at or above 60 FPS. Based on the recorded measurements, no preset at any resolution achieves this goal.

At 3840x2160, the highest average frame rate is 33 FPS with the Low preset. This is below the 60 FPS threshold, so there is no playable settings configuration at this resolution. The verdict for 4K lists no playable settings.

At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS with the Low preset. This also falls short of the 60 FPS target. The verdict for 1440p similarly lists no playable settings.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset reaches 56 FPS. While this is the closest result to the target, it still does not meet the 60 FPS requirement. The verdict for 1080p confirms that no playable settings exist. In summary, this combination cannot sustain 60 FPS at any tested resolution or preset.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Does this system achieve 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The database shows that no resolution or preset combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest result is 56 FPS at 1080p Low.

Q: How does performance scale between 1080p and 4K at Low settings?

A: At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 56 FPS at 1920x1080 to 33 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a significant performance decrease as resolution increases.

Q: What is the average frame rate at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average frame rate is 35 FPS. The recorded minimum is 30 FPS and the maximum is 40 FPS.

Q: Is there any difference in average FPS between High and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, both the High and Ultra presets produce an identical average of 19 FPS.

Q: What are the recorded frame rates for 1080p Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average frame rate is 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU to contextualize the performance of this combination. For the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, the closest alternatives are all within a narrow performance band. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is nearly identical, with an average benchmark score that is only 0.2% higher. The AMD EPYC 4584PX and AMD EPYC 9135 are slightly ahead, with scores 1.1% and 1.2% higher respectively. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is marginally behind, with a score 1.3% lower. These deltas indicate that the CPU's processing power is not a differentiating factor in this system's gaming performance.

The Intel Arc B390, however, is in an entirely different performance class. Its nearest rivals are legacy NVIDIA parts, including the GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GeForce GT 625 OEM, and GeForce GT 710. The Arc B390's benchmark score is 1.3% higher than the GT 520MX, 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M, 2.5% higher than the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% higher than the GT 710. These comparisons show that the integrated graphics solution performs at a level comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains the consistently low frame rates in this flight simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance data clearly indicates that the graphics processor is the primary bottleneck for this game. The CPU, an Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, is a high-end desktop processor with 24 cores and 24 threads, and its benchmark scores place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The GPU, an Intel Arc B390, is an integrated graphics solution with a benchmark score that places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This massive disparity in relative performance is reflected in the frame rate results.

Evidence for the GPU bottleneck appears in the scaling between resolutions. At Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 reduces the average frame rate from 56 FPS to 45 FPS, a drop of roughly 20%. Moving from 1440p to 4K reduces it further to 33 FPS, another significant decline. This behavior is typical of a system where the graphics processor is saturated, as the workload increases with pixel count.

The scaling between presets at a fixed resolution further confirms this. At 1080p, the average frame rate falls from 56 FPS at Low to 33 FPS at High, showing that the GPU struggles with the increased graphical complexity. At 4K, the High and Ultra presets both produce 19 FPS, suggesting the GPU has reached its maximum output and cannot handle additional settings changes. The CPU's role is minimal in this context; the recorded frame rates are dictated almost entirely by the GPU's capabilities across all resolutions and settings.

The Verdict

Based on the measured data, this system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The database defines the playable threshold as 60 FPS, and the verdict by resolution confirms that no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

At 3840x2160, the best possible average is 33 FPS with Low settings, far below the target. At 2560x1440, the best possible average is 45 FPS with Low settings, still below the target. At 1920x1080, the best possible average is 56 FPS with Low settings, which is the closest result but still misses the 60 FPS threshold by a small margin. In all cases, the average frame rate is insufficient for a smooth simulation experience. The system would require a significantly more powerful graphics solution to meet the playable threshold at any resolution.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the database of tested combinations, this pairing ranks near the bottom. The combo rank for this specific CPU and GPU configuration in Microsoft Flight Simulator is 3302 out of 3714 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems.

This low ranking is consistent with the frame rate measurements. The combination of a top-tier CPU with a low-tier integrated GPU results in performance that is severely limited by the graphics component. The high CPU rank (96th percentile) does not compensate for the GPU's low rank (9th percentile) in this gaming workload. The result is a system that, despite its capable processor, delivers frame rates that are not suitable for this game at any tested setting. The data indicates that users seeking to play Microsoft Flight Simulator would need to consider a different graphics solution to achieve the 60 FPS target.