Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with Intel Core i5-10400F + Intel Arc B370

This combination places 2770th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it near the bottom 8% of all configurations. The Intel Arc B370, an integrated-class GPU with a 25 W TDP and system-shared memory, is the dominant constraint across every resolution and preset, while the Intel Core i5-10400F provides sufficient processing headroom that never becomes the primary bottleneck. The measured frame rates tell a clear story: this is a configuration for playable low-to-medium settings at 1080p, with diminishing returns at higher resolutions that reveal the GPU's fundamental limits.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all preset levels, but the pattern reveals exactly where the bottleneck lives. At Low settings, the average FPS falls from 50 at 1920x1080 to 41 at 2560x1440 (an 18% reduction), then further to 30 at 3840x2160 (a 40% reduction from 1080p). This scaling curve is characteristic of a GPU that is severely pixel-bound — the Arc B370's 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs simply cannot sustain the pixel throughput demanded by 4K, even at the lowest graphical fidelity.

The Medium preset tells a similar story with a slightly different shape. From 39 FPS at 1080p, the average drops to 32 at 1440p (an 18% drop) and then to 23 at 4K (a 41% drop from 1080p). The consistency of these percentage drops across presets — roughly 18% from 1080p to 1440p and roughly 40% from 1080p to 4K — indicates that the resolution scaling penalty is largely independent of the settings level. This is a hallmark of a GPU-limited scenario: the CPU is not the constraint, because if it were, the frame rate would remain relatively flat as resolution increases while the GPU work scales up.

At High settings, the pattern continues: 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 at 1440p (a 20% drop), and 18 at 4K (a 40% drop). Ultra settings show the same relative scaling: 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 at 1440p (an 18% drop), and 17 at 4K (a 39% drop). The near-identical percentage drops across all four presets strongly suggest that the Arc B370 is the limiting component at every resolution, with no evidence of the CPU taking over at lower resolutions or higher frame rates.

The frame time data from the Medium preset provides additional insight. At 1080p, the measured range spans from 33 to 45 FPS; at 1440p, from 27 to 36 FPS; and at 4K, from 20 to 27 FPS. The spread narrows slightly as resolution increases, which is consistent with the GPU becoming more uniformly saturated — there is less variability when every frame is pushing the hardware to its limit. The minimum FPS values at each resolution (33, 27, and 20 respectively) suggest that even the worst-case frame times remain playable at 1080p Medium, but at 4K the experience degrades to near-unplayable territory.

FAQ

Q: Is this combination playable at 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. The maximum average FPS at 3840x2160 is 30 at Low settings, dropping to 17 at Ultra. Even at Low, the 30 FPS average is marginal for a flight simulator where smooth camera panning matters, and the Medium preset's minimum of 20 FPS indicates frequent stutters. The data shows 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU/GPU pairing?

A: The data clearly favors 1920x1080. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves 50 FPS average, Medium achieves 39 FPS, and even High maintains 30 FPS. At 1440p, the best case is 41 FPS at Low, which is a 22% drop from the 1080p Low result. The 1080p resolution is the only tier where Medium and High settings remain within a playable range.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in raw benchmark terms?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, 0.2% faster), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5% faster), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7% faster), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% slower). This places the Arc B370 in performance territory comparable to a decade-old entry-level discrete GPU.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-10400F bottleneck the Arc B370 in this game?

A: No. The resolution scaling data shows consistent frame rate drops as resolution increases, which indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The i5-10400F's 6 cores and 12 threads, with a 4.30 GHz boost clock, provide sufficient processing power for the flight simulator's CPU demands, as evidenced by the fact that FPS scales inversely with pixel count rather than remaining flat.

Q: What is the highest setting preset that maintains an average above 30 FPS?

A: At 1080p, the Medium preset achieves 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS, which is the highest preset level above the 30 FPS threshold. High settings at 1080p drop to exactly 30 FPS average, making Medium the safest choice for consistent performance without dipping below 30 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-10400F has an average benchmark score of 14185, placing it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6756E (14163, 0.2% slower), Intel Core 7 160UL (14232, 0.3% faster), AMD EPYC 7552 (14115, 0.5% slower), and AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14277, 0.6% faster). These are all within 1% of each other, indicating the i5-10400F sits in a tightly competitive performance band.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of playable configurations, and the optimal choice depends on whether the user prioritizes frame rate smoothness or visual fidelity. For a consistently smooth experience, the 1080p Low preset at 50 FPS average is the standout option — it delivers the highest frame rate of any measured configuration and leaves headroom for occasional dips without falling below playable thresholds. However, the jump to Medium at 1080p costs 11 FPS (from 50 to 39) but likely provides substantially better visual quality in a game where terrain detail and cloud rendering matter.

The Medium preset at 1080p, with its 39 FPS average and 33 FPS minimum, represents the best balance of performance and fidelity. The minimum FPS is still comfortably above 30, and the 45 FPS maximum suggests the system can handle less demanding scenes with reasonable smoothness. This is the recommended configuration for most users who want the game to look decent without sacrificing playability.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, the 1080p High preset at 30 FPS average is the highest-quality option that remains technically playable. However, the lack of minimum FPS data for this preset means there is no guarantee against dips below 30 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1080p, at 28 FPS average, falls below the 30 FPS threshold and should be avoided unless the user is willing to accept a slideshow-like experience in a game that benefits from smooth panning.

At 1440p, the only reasonable option is Low at 41 FPS average, but this represents a significant visual downgrade compared to 1080p Medium. The 1440p Medium preset drops to 32 FPS average with a 27 FPS minimum, which will produce visible stuttering during flight. At 4K, no preset achieves a comfortable frame rate — even Low at 30 FPS is marginal, and the Medium minimum of 20 FPS makes the experience unpleasant. Users with 1440p or 4K displays should strongly consider running the game at 1080p resolution instead.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2770th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 7.5% of all configurations. This ranking reflects the GPU's severe performance limitation — the Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs based on its average benchmark score of 1184, and this game's demanding rendering workload amplifies that weakness.

The CPU, by contrast, is not the reason for this poor ranking. The i5-10400F's 68th percentile standing among all CPUs (average benchmark score of 14185) shows it is a mid-range processor that can handle modern gaming workloads. The ranking disparity between the CPU and GPU components — 68th percentile versus 5th percentile — clearly indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck dragging this combo to the bottom quartile.

Contextualizing the 2770th rank within the 2996 total combos tested, this configuration beats only 226 other combinations. Given that the GPU's nearest rivals are all integrated or entry-level discrete graphics solutions from over a decade ago (ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M), the ranking is unsurprising. This is a combo designed for basic productivity and light gaming, not for a graphically intensive flight simulator running at high resolutions.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a 3 nm process node, featuring 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 ROPs. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2400 MHz, and it draws just 25 W — a power envelope that explains its performance limitations. The GPU's memory configuration is system-shared, meaning it relies on the host system's DDR4 memory rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "system dependent."

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Arc B370 scores 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals — ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168) — are all legacy components, confirming that the Arc B370's performance is roughly equivalent to entry-level graphics hardware from roughly a decade prior. The 0.2% to 1.4% deltaPct differences among these rivals are statistically negligible.

The measured FPS data in Microsoft Flight Simulator aligns with this benchmark positioning. The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for the game's complex rendering at higher resolutions. The system-shared memory architecture adds another layer of constraint, as the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The fact that the GPU has 10 ray tracing cores is irrelevant for this game at these performance levels, as the frame rates are too low to enable RT features meaningfully.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the configuration delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, Medium produces 39 FPS with a range of 33 to 45 FPS, High produces exactly 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. This is the only resolution where any preset achieves an average above 40 FPS, and the Medium preset's minimum of 33 FPS ensures that even demanding scenes remain above the 30 FPS playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, performance drops noticeably. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 36 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 27 FPS indicates that stuttering will occur during complex scenes, making even the Medium preset a risky choice at this resolution. Only Low settings maintain an average above 40 FPS, but the visual quality sacrifice is substantial.

At 3840x2160, the configuration struggles across all presets. Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS with a range of 20 to 27 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. No preset at 4K achieves a minimum FPS above 30, and the Medium preset's 20 FPS minimum makes the experience feel choppy. The 4K results confirm that this combo is not designed for ultra-high-resolution gaming.

The progression from Low to Ultra at each resolution shows consistent degradation: at 1080p, the drop from Low to Ultra is 22 FPS (50 to 28); at 1440p, the drop is 18 FPS (41 to 23); and at 4K, the drop is 13 FPS (30 to 17). The narrowing gap between Low and Ultra at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is saturated at 4K regardless of settings — the pixel throughput limit dominates over the settings-induced workload differences.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process node. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Its 65 W TDP classifies it as a mainstream desktop processor.

In synthetic benchmarks, the i5-10400F demonstrates solid multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 10283, single-core is 1451, and Geekbench multicore is 6257 with single-core at 1420. The 3DMark threaded tests show scaling from 1350 at 2 threads to 4748 at 16 threads, indicating reasonable multi-threading efficiency. The Passmark multithread score of 12115 and single-thread score of 2541 place it in the 68th percentile of all CPUs, confirming it is a capable mid-range processor.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU. The measured FPS scaling pattern — where frame rates drop proportionally with resolution increases — indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain similar across resolutions because the CPU workload (physics, flight model, AI traffic) does not scale with pixel count. Instead, the consistent resolution-based scaling proves the Arc B370 is the constraint.

The i5-10400F's 6 cores and 12 threads are adequate for this flight simulator, which typically benefits from a few strong cores rather than massive parallelism. The 4.30 GHz boost clock provides the single-thread performance that flight simulators often rely on for their core simulation loop. The CPU's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with its nearest rivals all being within 0.6% of its average score, shows that it is a well-balanced processor that will not hold back most gaming configurations — but in this pairing, it is vastly more capable than the GPU, leaving significant performance on the table.