Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B570 delivers a very specific performance envelope in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the measured frame data makes it clear where this combination excels and where it falls short. Across the three tested resolutions, the system shows a consistent pattern: lower presets produce playable frame rates, while higher presets drop below the 60 FPS threshold that defines smooth flight simulation. The data set includes average FPS for every resolution and preset combination, with minimum and maximum values recorded only for Medium settings at each resolution, which allows for a partial look at frame pacing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the Ultra 9 290K Plus and Arc B570 combination produces its lowest overall results. The Ultra preset averages 28 FPS, making it the slowest recorded configuration in the entire test set. High settings improve marginally to 30 FPS, while Medium settings reach 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. The Low preset is the fastest at this resolution, averaging 51 FPS, yet even that figure remains well below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The spread between Ultra and Low at 4K is 23 FPS, which indicates that the graphics card has a substantial impact on performance as settings scale, but the absolute ceiling is constrained by the hardware combination.

Moving down to 2560x1440, the results show a meaningful step up. The Low preset averages 69 FPS, which is the first configuration in the data to cross the 60 FPS line. Medium settings average 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS, meaning the average is playable but dips below the threshold during demanding moments. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra drops to 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 30 FPS, a larger relative difference than at 4K, highlighting that lower settings unlock significantly more headroom. The Medium preset’s maximum of 62 FPS shows that even at a non-playable average, the system can briefly reach acceptable frame rates, but the minimum of 46 FPS confirms that sustained flight over dense terrain will cause stutter.

At 1920x1080, the combination performs best. The Low preset averages 86 FPS, which is the highest average recorded across all resolutions and settings. Medium settings average 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS, placing the average just above the 60 FPS threshold while the minimum dips slightly below it. High settings average 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 38 FPS, the largest absolute spread in the data, which suggests that the Arc B570 is the limiting factor when visual quality increases. The Medium preset’s minimum of 57 FPS is noteworthy because it shows that even the best playable configuration has occasional frame drops, though the average remains solidly above the threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, the data shows no playable settings. Every preset — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — fails to reach the 60 FPS average needed for smooth gameplay. The best result is the Low preset at 51 FPS, but that still leaves a 9 FPS gap to the playable threshold. The verdict data confirms this, listing no playable settings for 4K and no best settings recommendation.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only configuration that clears 60 FPS, averaging 69 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above the threshold, and it is the recommended setting according to the verdict data. Medium settings average 54 FPS, which is close but not sufficient, and the 46 FPS minimum indicates that even the average would be undermined by sustained dips. The recommendation is straightforward: if you play at 1440p, you must use Low settings to maintain playability.

For 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the best playable option, averaging 67 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS, and it outperforms the Low preset’s 86 FPS average by a substantial margin while still clearing the threshold. The Medium preset’s minimum of 57 FPS is below the threshold, but the average is high enough that the occasional dip is unlikely to ruin the experience. The verdict data confirms Medium as the best settings choice at this resolution, with Low also listed as playable but not recommended as the best option.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the Intel Arc B570 plays the dominant role in this game’s performance, particularly as resolution increases. At 3840x2160, the difference between Low and Ultra is 23 FPS, which is smaller than the 30 FPS gap at 1440p and the 38 FPS gap at 1080p. This pattern is counterintuitive at first — typically, higher resolutions place more load on the GPU, which should widen the gap between presets. However, the Ultra 9 290K Plus is a high-end CPU with a strong multi-threaded score of 51731 in Cinebench R23, and the data suggests that at 4K, the CPU is less of a bottleneck, allowing the GPU to be the primary limiter across all settings. The fact that even the Low preset at 4K only reaches 51 FPS indicates that the Arc B570 cannot fully utilize the CPU’s capability at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the scaling between presets becomes more pronounced. The jump from Low to Medium is 15 FPS, from Medium to High is 13 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 2 FPS. The steep drop from Low to Medium suggests that the GPU’s memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s and its 10 GB GDDR6 frame buffer are sufficient for Low settings but become strained as texture quality and draw distances increase. The CPU’s role is more visible here because the 69 FPS Low result shows that the processor can feed the GPU effectively at lower settings, but the GPU cannot maintain that throughput when settings rise.

At 1920x1080, the CPU’s influence is most apparent. The Low preset averages 86 FPS, which is a high figure that reflects the Ultra 9 290K Plus’s strong single-thread performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 7303. The CPU is not the bottleneck at this resolution with Low settings. However, the Medium preset drops to 67 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 50 and 48 FPS respectively. This sharp decline indicates that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as soon as settings exceed Low, despite the CPU having ample headroom. The Arc B570’s FP32 throughput of 11.52 TFLOPS and its 144 texture mapping units are adequate for Low but insufficient for higher presets, even at 1080p.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with any settings?

A: No. The data shows that every preset at 3840x2160 fails to reach 60 FPS. The best result is the Low preset at 51 FPS, which is below the playable threshold. The Ultra preset averages 28 FPS.

Q: What is the best preset for 2560x1440?

A: The Low preset is the only playable option, averaging 69 FPS. Medium settings average 54 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and the minimum of 46 FPS confirms that Medium is not viable.

Q: Is the Medium preset at 1920x1080 playable?

A: Yes, but with caveats. The average is 67 FPS, which clears the threshold, but the minimum is 57 FPS, meaning occasional dips below 60 FPS will occur. The Low preset at 86 FPS is a more stable alternative.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to its closest rival in terms of benchmark score?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, which is 0.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile’s 20534 and 0.1% lower than the Intel Arc A750’s 20582. These differences are negligible in real-world terms.

Q: What does the combo rank in this game relative to other tested combinations?

A: This combination ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the lower portion of the database. The percentile for the GPU is 65, meaning it outperforms 65% of tested GPUs, but the game’s demanding nature pulls the overall rank down.

Q: Does the CPU’s benchmark performance indicate it can handle this game?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score of 84003 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, has a nearly identical score of 83807 with a 0.2% delta. The CPU is not the bottleneck at lower resolutions, as shown by the 86 FPS result at 1080p Low.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and Intel Arc B570 combination can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings — every preset falls below the 60 FPS threshold, with the best being Low at 51 FPS. This resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay. At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the sole playable option, averaging 69 FPS, which clears the threshold by a comfortable margin. Medium settings at 1440p average 54 FPS and are not recommended. At 1920x1080, both Low and Medium presets are playable, with Medium being the best choice at 67 FPS. The Low preset averages 86 FPS, offering a higher margin of safety. For users who prioritize visual quality, the Medium preset at 1080p is the best trade-off, but those who want consistent frame rates should opt for Low at 1440p or Low at 1080p. The data clearly shows that this system is best suited for 1080p gaming with medium settings or 1440p with low settings, and it cannot handle 4K in any configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

Among the 3714 tested combinations in the database, this pairing of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and the Intel Arc B570 ranks 2988. That places it in the lower 20% of all tested combos for this game, which reflects the Arc B570’s limitations in a title that is heavily dependent on GPU throughput. The CPU itself is a strong performer — its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 84003 indicate that it is not the weak link. The GPU’s 65th percentile ranking, with an average score of 20556, is more modest, and in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, that GPU score is what drives the final rank. The top half of the database is populated by combinations with higher-tier GPUs, and this combo’s rank is pulled down by the B570’s inability to sustain high frame rates at higher presets. The verdict data reinforces this: only Low at 1440p and Low/Medium at 1080p are playable, which is a narrow range of options compared to what higher-ranked combinations would offer.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for both components, the CPU comparisons show that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the closest match, with an average benchmark score of 83807 against the 290K Plus’s 84003, a delta of 0.2%. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% slower) and the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% slower) are also nearby, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072) is 1.3% faster. In practical terms, any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game, since the 290K Plus’s advantage over the 285K is negligible and the EPYC chips are server-class parts with similar multi-threaded muscle.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc A750 is the closest rival, with an average score of 20582, which is 0.1% higher than the Arc B570’s 20556. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534) is 0.1% slower, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662) is 0.5% faster. The Quadro M4000M (20480) is 0.4% slower. These deltas are all under one percent, meaning that swapping the B570 for any of these GPUs would result in essentially identical measured FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Users who own an Arc A750 or an RTX 3070 Mobile would see the same playable settings — Low at 1440p and Low/Medium at 1080p — with no meaningful difference in frame rates. The only notable outlier is the R9 M390X, which is a mobile GPU from an older generation, but its benchmark score is close enough that the game performance would be indistinguishable. This cluster of GPUs all sit in the same performance tier, and the data suggests that none of them would boost the combo to a 4K playable status or push 1440p Medium above 60 FPS.