Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core i5-10400F + Intel Arc B570

The data paints a clear picture of a combination that is heavily constrained by the graphics card at higher resolutions, yet shows surprising CPU headroom at 1080p. The Intel Core i5-10400F and Intel Arc B570 pairing delivers playable results across most settings, but the measured FPS curve reveals a system that transitions from CPU-leaning to GPU-bound as resolution climbs. With the combo ranking 2406 out of 2996 tested combinations, this is a mid-pack performer that rewards careful settings selection rather than brute-force cranking of every slider.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a steep and consistent drop as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-limited configuration at higher pixel counts. At High settings, the average FPS falls from 50 at 1920x1080, to 41 at 2560x1440, and finally to 30 at 3840x2160. That represents a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K in average frame rate at High settings. The scaling is not perfectly linear, but the trend is unmistakable: each step up in resolution exacts a heavy toll.

The Low settings row tells an even more dramatic story. At 1920x1080 Low, the system produces 86 FPS, but at 3840x2160 Low, it drops to 51 FPS — a 41% loss. The fact that even at the lowest graphical preset the 4K resolution cannot reach 60 FPS suggests the Arc B570's rendering throughput is the primary bottleneck when pixel count rises. The GPU's 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 380.0 GB/s bandwidth appears to be a limiting factor, though the data does not isolate VRAM capacity as the specific cause.

Interestingly, the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the spread from Low (86 FPS) to Ultra (48 FPS) is 38 FPS. At 4K, that spread shrinks to 23 FPS (51 FPS Low vs 28 FPS Ultra). This compression of the settings range at 4K indicates that the GPU is so saturated at high resolution that lowering settings yields diminishing returns — the card is already working near its limits regardless of preset.

The 1440p results sit predictably between the two extremes. Medium settings at 2560x1440 produce 54 FPS average with a minimum of 46 and maximum of 62, which is the only measured row at this resolution that includes min/max data. This suggests 1440p Medium is a stable experience, while the 4K Medium row shows 40 FPS average with a 34-46 range, indicating more frame-time variance at the higher resolution.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-10400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Comet Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz place it as a solid mid-range CPU from 2020, but the benchmark data shows it is not the limiting factor in most scenarios tested here. The processor's 3dmark single-thread score of 688 and multi-thread score of 4735 (max threads) indicate competent but not exceptional compute capability.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is typically significant due to the simulation's complex world physics and AI computation. However, the measured FPS data suggests that at 1080p, the i5-10400F is able to feed the Arc B570 adequately. The jump from Low (86 FPS) to Ultra (48 FPS) at 1080p is substantial, but the fact that even the lowest preset cannot push beyond 86 FPS hints at some upper bound — whether from CPU single-thread performance or the GPU's capability at that resolution is not directly discernible from the data.

The 3dmark 2-thread score of 1350 and 4-thread score of 2560 suggest that the CPU's performance scales reasonably with thread count, but Flight Simulator is known to favor strong single-core performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451 and multi-core score of 10283 indicate that this CPU is roughly in line with other mid-range 10th Gen parts. Compared to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database, the i5-10400F sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (avgScore 14277, deltaPct -0.6) and 0.5% above the AMD EPYC 7552 (avgScore 14115, deltaPct 0.5).

The 12 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for the game's demands, but the data does not suggest the CPU is pushing beyond its comfort zone. At 4K resolutions, the CPU is clearly not the bottleneck — the FPS drops are far too consistent with GPU load patterns. At 1080p Low, the 86 FPS result is respectable and indicates that the CPU can handle the simulation's workload when the GPU is not overwhelmed.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is a Battlemage architecture GPU built on TSMC's 5 nm process, featuring 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. Its 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus provides 380.0 GB/s bandwidth, with a base and boost clock of 2500 MHz. The GPU's FP32 throughput of 11.52 TFLOPS places it in the mid-range of current graphics cards, and its 18 ray tracing cores add modern feature support.

The GPU's benchmark scores show a mixed profile. The Passmark G3D score of 14195 and DirectX 11 score of 118 indicate competent DirectX 11 performance, while the DirectX 12 score of 72 and DirectX 10 score of 65 are notably lower. This pattern suggests that the Arc B570's driver optimization for older APIs may not be as strong as for newer ones, which could affect Flight Simulator's rendering path. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 96844 is strong, and the OpenCL score of 83514 confirms solid compute performance.

Compared to its nearest GPU rivals, the Arc B570 sits remarkably close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (avgScore 20534, deltaPct 0.1) and the Intel Arc A750 (avgScore 20582, deltaPct -0.1). This tight clustering indicates that the B570 is performance-competitive with these cards in synthetic benchmarks, yet Flight Simulator's measured FPS suggests real-world behavior may differ. The GPU's 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs puts it in the upper-mid range.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU is the dominant constraint at 1440p and 4K. At 2560x1440 Ultra, the average FPS is 39, which is barely above the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimum playable. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average drops to 28 FPS — below that threshold. The GPU's 10 GB VRAM may be sufficient for most settings, but the 160-bit bus width and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth could limit texture streaming at high resolutions in a game known for massive scenery data.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where all settings presets achieve at least 48 FPS average. At 2560x1440, the Ultra preset drops to 39 FPS, and at 3840x2160, even Low settings only reach 51 FPS. The 1080p resolution is clearly the most playable across all settings.

Q: How does the Arc B570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20556 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534) and 0.1% below the Intel Arc A750 (20582). It also sits 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480) and 0.5% below the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662).

Q: Is the Core i5-10400F a bottleneck at 4K resolution?

A: No. The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K at every settings preset is proportional to the increase in pixel count, which indicates GPU limitation. At 3840x2160 Ultra, the 28 FPS result is far below what the CPU could theoretically support, making the GPU the clear bottleneck.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 86 at Low to 48 at Ultra, a difference of 38 FPS. The Medium preset sits at 67 FPS, and High at 50 FPS. This wide spread indicates the GPU has headroom at 1080p to handle significant visual upgrades.

Q: Where does this combo rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The Intel Core i5-10400F + Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2406 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the ranking, suggesting that many other CPU-GPU pairings achieve better performance in this specific title.

Q: Does the CPU's single-thread performance limit the game at any resolution?

A: The CPU's 3dmark single-thread score of 688 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1451 are modest, but the measured FPS at 1080p Low (86 FPS) suggests the CPU can handle the simulation's core workload. The limitation appears at higher settings, where GPU load dominates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience depends heavily on the target resolution and acceptable frame rate. For smooth gameplay at 60 FPS or higher, the only viable option is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces 86 FPS average. However, this sacrifices significant visual quality in a game where scenery detail is a primary appeal.

The best balance of visual fidelity and performance appears to be 1080p Medium, which delivers 67 FPS average with a minimum of 57 FPS. This preset provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold while still offering improved textures and effects over Low. The 57 FPS minimum indicates some frame dips, but not enough to cause severe stuttering.

For users willing to accept 30-50 FPS, the 1440p High preset (41 FPS) or 1440p Medium (54 FPS) become viable. The 1440p Medium row shows a 46-62 FPS range, suggesting that while average is 54, there will be moments of both smoothness and noticeable slowdown. The 4K resolution is only playable at Low settings (51 FPS) or Medium (40 FPS), with Ultra falling below 30 FPS at 28 FPS average.

The data suggests that 1080p Medium is the "sweet spot" for this combination — it offers the highest settings that maintain an average above 60 FPS. Users prioritizing visual quality over smoothness could consider 1440p Medium, but the 4K options are generally not recommended except for screenshots or non-interactive viewing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full range of settings was tested. Low settings produce an average of 86 FPS, which is the highest measured result for this combo. Medium settings drop to 67 FPS average with a minimum of 57 and maximum of 77. High settings yield 50 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce 48 FPS average. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a steady decline, with the largest single drop occurring between Low and Medium (19 FPS).

The 2560x1440 results show a compressed range. Low settings average 69 FPS, Medium averages 54 FPS with a 46-62 range, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra here is 30 FPS, compared to 38 FPS at 1080p. Interestingly, the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional demands are not costing much performance at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the performance drops significantly. Low settings average 51 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a 34-46 range, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The range from Low to Ultra is only 23 FPS, indicating that at 4K, all settings are constrained by the GPU's capability. The Medium row's minimum of 34 FPS shows that even mid-tier settings can experience notable frame drops.

The min/max data is only available for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 1080p, the 57-77 range (67 average) shows a 20 FPS spread. At 1440p, the 46-62 range (54 average) shows a 16 FPS spread. At 4K, the 34-46 range (40 average) shows a 12 FPS spread. This narrowing of variance at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU's consistent workload at 4K reduces frame-time spikes, but the overall performance is too low for comfortable play.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-10400F + Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2406 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 80th percentile from the bottom, meaning roughly 590 combos perform worse, while about 2405 perform better. Given that both components are mid-range parts, this ranking is somewhat below what their individual benchmark percentiles might suggest.

The CPU's percentile of 68 among all CPUs and the GPU's percentile of 65 among all GPUs would seem to predict a combo ranking in the mid-60s percentile range. However, the game-specific ranking at 20th percentile (from the top) indicates that this pairing underperforms relative to expectations — likely due to Flight Simulator's demanding combination of CPU simulation and GPU rendering loads.

The nearest CPU rivals show how close the i5-10400F is to other processors in synthetic tests. The Intel Xeon 6756E (avgScore 14163, deltaPct 0.2) and Intel Core 7 160UL (avgScore 14232, deltaPct -0.3) are within 0.3% of the i5-10400F's score of 14185. This tight grouping suggests that swapping to any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical results in most games, including Flight Simulator.

On the GPU side, the Arc B570's nearest rivals are equally close. The RTX 3070 Mobile and Arc A750 sit within 0.1% of the B570's average score, meaning synthetic benchmarks cannot distinguish between them. However, the game's measured FPS may differ due to driver optimizations or architecture-specific behaviors. The low ranking in this specific game suggests that the Arc B570's driver maturity for Flight Simulator may be a contributing factor, though the data does not directly confirm this hypothesis.