Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Arc B390 pairing delivers some of the lowest frame rates recorded in Microsoft Flight Simulator, ranking 2665th out of 2996 tested combinations. The data shows a system that is severely constrained by its graphics solution, with the CPU’s solid multi-threaded capabilities largely wasted in this flight simulator title.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the Zen 4 architecture, using the Phoenix codename on a 4 nm TSMC process. It operates with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The chip features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 via a dual-channel bus, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates respectable performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 and single-core score of 2943 place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs tested. The 3DMark suite shows scaling from 951 single-thread to 6165 at max threads, indicating that the processor can leverage additional cores effectively. PassMark results reinforce this, with a multithread score of 24389 and a single-thread score of 3685.

Comparing to near rivals, the Ryzen 5 8400F sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, Intel Core i7-11850H, and Intel Core i7-13620H in average benchmark scores. It is slightly ahead of these chips by margins ranging from 0.2% to 0.4%, while trailing the AMD EPYC 9474F by the same 0.4% margin. These are essentially statistical ties, meaning the 8400F offers competitive computational throughput for its class.

However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s contribution is largely theoretical. The measured frame rates show the system struggling to maintain playable performance, and the bottleneck is clearly not the processor. At 1080p Low settings, the system produces 56 FPS average, which is the highest figure recorded across all configurations. The CPU’s 12 threads and high boost clock are sufficient to feed the graphics pipeline; the limitation lies elsewhere in the system.

The data suggests that the Ryzen 5 8400F has ample headroom for this title. Its 3DMark 16-thread score of 6091 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851 indicate that it can handle the simulation’s computational load, which includes physics, scenery generation, and flight model calculations. The processor’s 77th percentile ranking confirms that it is not a weak link in this combination.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz, with a TDP of 80 W. Pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS.

Memory is system shared, meaning the GPU uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This is a critical limitation for a flight simulator that streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, indicating very low performance relative to the broader market.

The nearest rivals for the Arc B390 are all legacy NVIDIA parts. It outperforms the GeForce GT 520MX by 1.3%, the GeForce 800M by 1.5%, the GeForce GT 625 OEM by 2.5%, and the GeForce GT 710 by 2.7% in the 3DMark benchmark. These are ancient, low-end parts from over a decade ago, underscoring how far behind the Arc B390 is in raw graphics performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s limitations dominate the measured results. The 3DMark score of 1482 correlates with the frame rates observed: the system never exceeds 56 FPS at any resolution or setting, and at higher quality settings, it drops to the low 20s or teens. The 12 ray tracing cores are present but irrelevant at these performance levels, as the game likely cannot leverage them effectively given the baseline rasterization performance.

The system shared memory design compounds the problem. With bandwidth that is system dependent, the GPU competes with the CPU for memory access, which is particularly harmful in a simulation that requires large, continuous data streams. The results indicate that the Arc B390 is the primary bottleneck, with the CPU waiting on the GPU to complete rendering tasks.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M, 2.5% higher than the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% higher than the GeForce GT 710.

Q: What is the CPU’s percentile ranking among all processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005.

Q: Does the system achieve better frame rates at 1440p or 4K compared to 1080p?

A: No, frame rates decrease as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the average is 56 FPS, dropping to 45 FPS at 1440p Low and 33 FPS at 4K Low.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core performance between the Ryzen 5 8400F and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005, which is 0.2% higher than the Ryzen 5 7500F’s score of 24964.

Q: What is the lowest average frame rate recorded for this combination?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 19 FPS, recorded at 3840x2160 with both High and Ultra settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all systems tested, which is consistent with the GPU’s 9th percentile ranking among all graphics cards. The CPU’s 77th percentile ranking does little to boost the overall position, as the system’s performance is capped by the integrated graphics solution.

The disparity between the CPU and GPU performance tiers is stark. The Ryzen 5 8400F competes with processors like the Ryzen 5 7500F and Core i7-13620H, which are capable mid-range parts. The Arc B390, conversely, competes with GPUs like the GeForce GT 710 and GT 520MX, which are entry-level parts from a different era. This mismatch means that the combo rank is determined almost entirely by the GPU, with the CPU offering no meaningful uplift in this specific title.

In practical terms, this ranking means that the system will struggle with Microsoft Flight Simulator at any playable quality setting. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system only manages 56 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many users consider smooth. At higher settings or resolutions, the system falls well below playable thresholds, with 4K Ultra producing just 19 FPS.

The rank of 2665 out of 2996 is unambiguous: this is a low-performing combination for this game. The CPU has the raw computational power to handle the simulation’s logic, but the GPU cannot render the frames fast enough to utilize that power.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates show a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases. At Low settings, the system averages 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. This represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 27% drop from 1440p to 4K. The overall drop from 1080p to 4K is 41%, which is a significant reduction but not as severe as what would be expected if the GPU were completely overwhelmed.

At Medium settings, the averages are 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19%, and from 1440p to 4K is 26%. High settings show 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, with drops of 21% and 27% respectively. Ultra settings follow the same pattern: 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K.

The consistent drop pattern across all settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. As resolution increases, the pixel throughput requirement grows, and the Arc B390’s fixed pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s cannot keep up. The fact that the proportional drops are similar across settings suggests that the GPU is saturated at all quality levels; increasing resolution directly reduces frame rates without any CPU-related interference.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS (56 vs 31). At 4K, the difference is only 14 FPS (33 vs 19). This is a classic sign of GPU bottlenecking: at 4K, the GPU is so constrained that quality settings have less relative impact on performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its best results. Low settings yield an average of 56 FPS, which is the only resolution and setting combination that approaches a smooth experience. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings drop to 33 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce 31 FPS average. The range from Low to Ultra is 25 FPS, showing that quality settings have a substantial impact at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, performance falls across the board. Low settings average 45 FPS, a drop of 11 FPS from 1080p. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The system is now firmly in the territory where frame rates below 30 FPS are common, which is generally considered unplayable for a flight simulator that requires precise control inputs.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 33 FPS, which is a 41% drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium settings average 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS. High and Ultra settings both average 19 FPS, which is a stuttery, borderline interactive experience. The minimum FPS of 22 at 4K Medium indicates that even the worst-case dips are not catastrophic, but the averages are far too low for a simulator that demands smooth visuals for situational awareness.

The measured data reveals a system that is only marginally playable at 1080p Low settings, and becomes increasingly problematic as resolution or quality increases. The Arc B390’s performance ceiling is reached at roughly 56 FPS in the most favorable conditions, and the system never approaches the 60 FPS target that would make Microsoft Flight Simulator feel responsive. The Ryzen 5 8400F’s computational power is present, but the GPU bottleneck ensures that the experience is consistently subpar across all tested configurations.