Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i3-12100F paired with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. This is a low-ranking combination, and the benchmark data reflects a system that struggles to maintain playable frame rates at most settings. The Arc B390, despite being a recent integrated GPU, performs at a level comparable to entry-level discrete graphics from over a decade ago, while the i3-12100F provides adequate but not exceptional CPU performance. The measured results show a clear pattern: this combo is only viable at 1080p with Low settings, where it achieves an average of 56 FPS, but every other configuration falls below the 60 FPS threshold that most flight sim enthusiasts consider smooth. The data indicates a system that is heavily GPU-limited, as the i3-12100F’s four cores and eight threads are sufficient to feed the Arc B390 at lower resolutions, but the GPU simply lacks the raw throughput to handle higher presets or resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo’s rank of 2665 out of 2996 tested configurations places it in the 11th percentile of all systems tested in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a poor standing, and the benchmark results reinforce that ranking. The GPU is the primary bottleneck, as its average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), the GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and the GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower). These are all ancient, low-end parts, and the Arc B390’s performance is essentially in that same class. The i3-12100F, by contrast, is a much stronger component, with an average benchmark score of 13494 and a percentile ranking of 68 among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, 0% difference), the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, 0.3% faster), the Intel Core 5 120UL (13594, 0.7% slower), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351, 1.1% faster). The CPU is a mid-pack performer, but the GPU drags the entire combo down. In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the rank of 2665 out of 2996 indicates that 89% of tested systems outperform this configuration. The gap between the CPU’s 68th percentile ranking and the combo’s 11th percentile ranking is stark, and it underscores that the Arc B390 is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario. The data shows a system that is capable of running the simulator only at the lowest settings and resolution, and even then, it barely crosses the 60 FPS average mark.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated GPU based on the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process. It has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz, and it operates with system-shared memory, meaning the VRAM size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system-dependent. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and the FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, with FP16 reaching 15.36 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The TDP is 80 W, and it is an IGP with no power connectors, designed for portable devices as its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals being the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role is decisive. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 56 FPS average, but at 1080p Medium, it drops to 43 FPS, and at 1080p High, it falls further to 33 FPS. The Ultra preset yields 31 FPS at 1080p. These numbers show that the GPU’s limited compute resources (7.680 TFLOPS) are insufficient for the simulator’s demanding rendering workload at higher settings. The system-shared memory is a particular liability, as the bandwidth is system-dependent, and the GPU cannot rely on dedicated VRAM bandwidth. The 12 RT cores are present, but with only 24 ROPs, fill-rate bound scenarios in the simulator will suffer. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is respectable, but the base clock of 300 MHz suggests a power-constrained design that may not sustain high clocks under load. The data shows that the GPU is the primary constraint across all resolutions and settings, with the CPU rarely becoming the bottleneck.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable decline as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K, but the magnitude of the drop reveals how severely the GPU limits performance. At Low settings, the combo 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 41% drop from 1440p to 4K, for a total reduction of 41% from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the averages are 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K, with the 1080p to 4K drop being 40%. At High settings, the averages are 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, a total drop of 42%. At Ultra settings, the averages are 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, a drop of 39%. The consistency of these drops—around 40% from 1080p to 4K across all settings—indicates that the frame rate is scaling nearly linearly with pixel count, which is a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would be more similar across resolutions, as the CPU workload does not increase with resolution. Instead, the data shows that every resolution increase results in a proportional FPS decrease, meaning the Arc B390’s fill rate and shading throughput are exhausted at 1080p, and higher resolutions only make the situation worse. The 4K results are particularly telling: at High and Ultra, the average FPS is 19, which is below the minimum playable threshold for most users, and even at Low, 33 FPS is choppy. The 1440p results are marginally better, but only the Low preset at 45 FPS approaches playability. The 1080p Low result of 56 FPS is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, and even that is just below 60 FPS. This scaling behavior confirms that the GPU is the sole limiting component, and the i3-12100F has enough headroom to drive the Arc B390 at all tested resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the only configuration that provides a playable experience is 1080p with Low settings, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the recommended setup for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The 1080p Medium preset drops to 43 FPS, which is still somewhat fluid but below the 60 FPS target, and the 1080p High and Ultra presets at 33 FPS and 31 FPS, respectively, are too choppy for a smooth flight experience. At 1440p, the Low preset achieves 45 FPS, which might be acceptable for users who prioritize resolution over smoothness, but it is a significant step down from 1080p Low. The 1440p Medium at 35 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS are all below playable thresholds. At 4K, even the Low preset at 33 FPS is borderline unplayable, and the High and Ultra presets at 19 FPS are effectively slideshows. The data suggests that users should stick to 1080p Low for the best balance of visual fidelity and performance. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 23% improvement in visual quality over Low, but the FPS drops from 56 to 43, a 23% reduction, which is not a worthwhile trade-off for most users. The High and Ultra presets offer diminishing returns, as the FPS drops to 33 and 31, respectively, which are far from smooth. The minimum FPS measurements at Medium settings—37 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K—indicate that there are stutters even at Medium, which further supports the recommendation for Low settings. For users who must play at 1440p, the Low preset at 45 FPS is the only viable option, but it should be noted that the experience will be noticeably less smooth than at 1080p Low. The 4K resolutions are not recommended under any settings, as the highest average FPS is 33 at Low, which is too low for a simulator that requires precise control inputs. In summary, the measured data points to 1080p Low as the best experience, with 1440p Low as a secondary option for those who accept lower frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo’s performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, with no minimum or maximum recorded. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. The High preset averages 33 FPS, with no min or max recorded. The Ultra preset averages 31 FPS, also without min or max data. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline: 56, 43, 33, and 31 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, from Medium to High is 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset offers little additional visual benefit over High but costs 2 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, the Medium preset averages 35 FPS (min 30, max 40), the High preset averages 26 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. The decline from Low to Ultra is 20 FPS, with the largest single drop being 10 FPS from Low to Medium. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 33 FPS, the Medium preset averages 26 FPS (min 22, max 30), the High preset averages 19 FPS, and the Ultra preset also averages 19 FPS. The High and Ultra presets at 4K are identical at 19 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is completely saturated at that point and cannot differentiate between the two presets. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings—37 at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and 22 at 4K—reveal that frame times are not stable, and there are periods of significant stutter. The maximum FPS values at Medium—50 at 1080p, 40 at 1440p, and 30 at 4K—show that the GPU can occasionally hit higher frame rates, but these are not sustained. Across all resolutions, the Low preset is the only one that provides an average above 45 FPS at 1440p or below, and at 4K, no preset exceeds 33 FPS. The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the best, followed by 1080p Medium, then 1440p Low, and everything else is below 40 FPS. The lack of min/max data for most presets means that only the Medium settings have recorded frame time variability, but the available numbers suggest that the GPU is consistently near its limits.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S architecture, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. It has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Its TDP is 58 W, and it is an unlocked multiplier model, though the data shows it is not multiplier unlocked. The CPU’s benchmark scores show a strong single-thread performance: 3DMark single-thread score of 893, Cinebench R23 single-core of 1674, and Geekbench single-core of 1932. Multi-thread scores are also respectable: Cinebench R23 multi-core of 11860, Geekbench multi-core of 7252, and Passmark multithread of 14015. The CPU’s average benchmark score is 13494, placing it at the 68th percentile among all CPUs. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and AI, which are heavily single-threaded. The i3-12100F’s single-thread performance is adequate, as evidenced by the fact that the frame rate drops by roughly 40% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, which is a GPU-bound pattern. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would be more consistent across resolutions, especially at lower settings where the GPU has less work to do. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 56 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target, and this suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor at that setting. However, at 1080p High, the FPS drops to 33, which is a 41% reduction, and this is entirely due to the GPU’s inability to handle the increased shading and texture work. The CPU’s 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for the simulator’s main thread, but the data shows that the GPU is the sole constraint. The CPU’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core 3 N355 (13492, 0% difference), the Intel Core i5-9500 (13452, 0.3% faster), and the Intel Core i7-1250U (13351, 1.1% faster), all of which are in the same performance class. The i3-12100F’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 4051 and 8-thread score of 4026 show that it scales well up to 8 threads, but the 4-thread score of 2859 reveals that it is a quad-core part at heart. In a simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance, the i3-12100F’s boost clock of 4.30 GHz and single-thread score of 893 in 3DMark are sufficient. The CPU is not the bottleneck in any of the measured configurations, and the data confirms that the Arc B390 is the limiting component. The system-shared memory on the GPU also means that the CPU’s memory controller and bandwidth are shared with the GPU, but this does not appear to cause additional CPU bottlenecking, as the FPS scaling is purely resolution-driven. Overall, the i3-12100F performs its role adequately, but it cannot compensate for the GPU’s severe limitations.