Microsoft Flight Simulator

Settings Recommendations

The measured data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B390 reveals a clear hierarchy across the four settings presets tested. At every resolution, the Low preset delivers the highest average frame rate, while Ultra consistently produces the lowest. The gap between Low and Ultra is substantial: at 1080p, Low averages 56 FPS versus 31 FPS on Ultra, representing an 81% improvement in average frame rate. This pattern holds across all resolutions, suggesting that the Ultra preset imposes rendering demands that this combination cannot comfortably satisfy.

For users prioritizing smooth gameplay, the Low preset is the only option that consistently maintains playable frame rates. At 1080p, Low averages 56 FPS, which is the only measured configuration to exceed the 50 FPS threshold. At 1440p, Low drops to 45 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 33 FPS. The Medium preset offers a more balanced visual experience but at a significant cost: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. The High preset provides essentially identical performance to Ultra, with 33 FPS at 1080p versus 31 FPS on Ultra, and 26 FPS versus 25 FPS at 1440p. This near-parity between High and Ultra suggests that the additional visual fidelity of Ultra does not impose a meaningful extra burden on this hardware, but neither preset delivers adequate frame rates outside of 1080p Low.

The data implies that Microsoft Flight Simulator's visual quality scaling is not linear in its performance impact. Moving from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 13 FPS (from 56 to 43), while moving from Medium to High costs 10 FPS (from 43 to 33), but moving from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS (from 33 to 31). The diminishing penalty at the top end suggests the Ultra preset may be limited by other factors, possibly CPU-driven simulation logic rather than pure GPU rendering. For the best experience per the measured rows, the Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that achieves a frame rate above 50 FPS, making it the recommended choice for playable performance. Users who can tolerate lower frame rates might consider Medium at 1440p, which offers 35 FPS with moderate visual improvements.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. Its benchmark credentials are modest: it scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the benchmark database are all legacy NVIDIA parts, including the GeForce GT 520MX (scoring 1463, 1.3% behind), the GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% behind). This peer group positions the Arc B390 as an entry-level graphics solution, which aligns with its measured performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU's specifications include 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock reaches 2500 MHz, while the base clock operates at 300 MHz. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM, meaning the GPU relies on the host system's DDR5 memory for all frame buffer operations. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which introduces variability based on the system's memory configuration. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 compute rated at 7.680 TFLOPS.

The data shows that this GPU becomes the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. At 4K Ultra, the average frame rate is 19 FPS, identical to 4K High, suggesting the GPU is saturated regardless of the preset. The system-shared memory architecture likely contributes to this limitation, as there is no dedicated VRAM to buffer large textures and geometry data. The 4K results, ranging from 19 FPS on High and Ultra to 33 FPS on Low, indicate that the Arc B390 cannot maintain fluid performance at 4K even with minimal settings. The GPU's percentile ranking of 9th among all GPUs reinforces its position as a low-end part, and the measured flight simulator results confirm that it is the limiting factor in this combination at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals how dramatically performance degrades as resolution increases. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, a 20% reduction, and then to 33 FPS at 4K, a further 27% reduction from 1440p. The cumulative drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 41%. At Medium settings, the decline is similar: 43 FPS at 1080p falls to 35 FPS at 1440p (19% reduction) and then to 26 FPS at 4K (26% reduction from 1440p). High settings show 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p (21% reduction), and 19 FPS at 4K (27% reduction from 1440p). Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p (19% reduction), and 19 FPS at 4K (24% reduction from 1440p).

This consistent scaling pattern across all presets suggests that the performance drop from 1080p to 1440p is proportionally similar to the drop from 1440p to 4K, with reductions ranging from 19% to 27% at each step. The near-uniformity of these percentages indicates that the limiting component's behavior is predictable across resolution changes. The fact that even the Low preset cannot maintain playable frame rates at 4K (33 FPS) and barely achieves 45 FPS at 1440p strongly suggests the GPU is the primary constraint. A CPU-bound scenario would typically show less severe degradation at higher resolutions, as the CPU workload remains relatively constant while the GPU work increases.

The resolution scaling data implies that this combination is best suited for 1080p operation, and even then, only the Low preset delivers performance above 50 FPS. At 1440p, all presets fall below 45 FPS, and at 4K, the maximum achievable average is 33 FPS on Low. The measured frame time consistency, where available, shows the Medium preset at 4K ranges from 22 FPS minimum to 30 FPS maximum, a relatively narrow band that indicates stable, if slow, performance. The limiting component is clearly the Intel Arc B390, whose 9th percentile ranking among GPUs and system-shared memory architecture prevent it from handling the increased pixel count at higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for playable performance?

A: The only measured configuration that exceeds 50 FPS is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 56 FPS. All other settings at 1080p fall below 43 FPS, and no configuration at 1440p or 4K reaches 50 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3% behind), followed by the GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% behind).

Q: What is the performance difference between High and Ultra settings?

A: The difference is minimal across all resolutions. At 1080p, High averages 33 FPS versus 31 FPS on Ultra. At 1440p, High averages 26 FPS versus 25 FPS on Ultra. At 4K, both presets average 19 FPS. This suggests the Ultra preset does not impose a significantly higher rendering load.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit performance in this game?

A: The resolution scaling data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Performance drops consistently as resolution increases, from 56 FPS at 1080p Low to 33 FPS at 4K Low, which is characteristic of GPU-bound workloads. The Arc B390's 9th percentile ranking among GPUs supports this conclusion.

Q: What is the Ryzen 5 7400F's benchmark standing relative to other CPUs?

A: The CPU has an average benchmark score of 32750, placing it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600T (32707, 0.1% behind), Intel Core Ultra 7 155H (32697, 0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H (32812, 0.2% ahead), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 (32662, 0.3% behind).

Q: What frame rates can be expected at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the average frame rate is 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. This provides a playable but not smooth experience, with frame times that may exhibit noticeable variation.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations, reflecting the GPU's severe performance limitation in this title. The rank of 2665 means that 331 tested combinations performed worse, while 2664 performed better at this game. Given that the GPU sits in the 9th percentile overall, it is unsurprising that the combo ranks near the bottom, but the specific rank of 2665 out of 2996 indicates that even many presumably lower-end CPUs paired with more capable GPUs outperform this setup.

The CPU's strong benchmark position—83rd percentile with an average score of 32750—contrasts sharply with the GPU's weak position. This imbalance suggests that the combo's poor ranking is almost entirely attributable to the Arc B390. The CPU is capable of handling the simulation workload, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and single-core score of 3072, but the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering demands at any resolution above 1080p Low. The data implies that pairing this CPU with a more capable GPU would likely yield significantly better results, but within the measured configuration, the rank of 2665 reflects the GPU's bottleneck.

The deltaPct values among the GPU's nearest rivals are all within 2.7%, indicating that the Arc B390 is closely matched with several legacy NVIDIA parts in synthetic benchmarks. However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured FPS data shows that even the Low preset struggles to maintain 33 FPS at 4K, underscoring the GPU's inadequacy for this title. The combo's rank of 2665 out of 2996 means that 89% of tested combinations achieve better performance, placing this setup firmly in the lower quartile of tested hardware.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 with dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU's benchmark performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21765 and a single-core score of 3072, placing it in the 83rd percentile among all CPUs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, including flight dynamics, weather, and scenery generation. The measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck, as performance scales consistently with resolution changes. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, but the data shows significant drops from 1080p to 4K. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 56 at 1080p to 33 at 4K, a 41% reduction that indicates GPU-bound behavior.

The CPU's nearest rivals in benchmark scores are all within 0.3% of its average score of 32750, suggesting that the 7400F performs comparably to a range of mid-range processors. The Intel Core i5-14600T scores 32707 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H scores 32697 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 scores 32662 (0.3% behind). These tight margins indicate that the CPU's computational capabilities are competitive, and in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where CPU performance matters for simulation logic, the 7400F provides sufficient processing power. The measured FPS data, however, shows that the GPU cannot translate this CPU capability into high frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B390 is as follows:

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low settings: 56 FPS average
• Medium settings: 43 FPS average, with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS
• High settings: 33 FPS average
• Ultra settings: 31 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low settings: 45 FPS average
• Medium settings: 35 FPS average, with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS
• High settings: 26 FPS average
• Ultra settings: 25 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low settings: 33 FPS average
• Medium settings: 26 FPS average, with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS
• High settings: 19 FPS average
• Ultra settings: 19 FPS average

The data reveals several notable patterns. First, the Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that exceeds 50 FPS, achieving 56 FPS. Second, the Medium preset provides the only configurations with minimum and maximum frame rate data, showing that at 1080p, frame rates range from 37 to 50 FPS, at 1440p from 30 to 40 FPS, and at 4K from 22 to 30 FPS. These ranges indicate relatively consistent frame pacing within the Medium preset.

Third, the difference between High and Ultra settings is negligible at every resolution: at 1080p, 33 versus 31 FPS; at 1440p, 26 versus 25 FPS; and at 4K, both are 19 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional visual effects do not significantly impact performance, possibly because the GPU is already saturated at High settings.

Fourth, the scaling from Low to Medium to High settings at each resolution follows a roughly linear pattern, with each step costing approximately 10-12 FPS at 1080p, 9-10 FPS at 1440p, and 7-8 FPS at 4K. The reduced absolute cost at higher resolutions reflects the GPU's diminishing capacity to handle additional rendering work when already heavily loaded.

The data also shows that at 4K, the High and Ultra presets both produce 19 FPS average, which is below the minimum playable threshold for most users. Even the Low preset at 4K only achieves 33 FPS, which is borderline playable but may exhibit noticeable stutter in busy scenes. The measured frame time data for Medium settings shows a maximum of 30 FPS at 4K, indicating that even the best-case scenario at this resolution is limited to 30 FPS. This comprehensive breakdown confirms that the combination is best suited for 1080p Low settings, with all other configurations offering reduced frame rates that may not meet the expectations of flight simulator enthusiasts.