Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents an unusually demanding workload, and the measured results for the Intel Core i5-12400 paired with the Intel Arc B370 place this combination in a challenging position. The data indicates a system that is heavily constrained, with performance figures that sit at the lower end of the spectrum for this title. This analysis will break down the measured FPS across resolutions and settings, interpret what the scaling suggests about the primary bottleneck, and contextualize the experience against other tested hardware combinations.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data across the three tested resolutions reveals a predictable but stark decline as pixel count increases, which strongly indicates that the graphics processor is the definitive limiting factor in this configuration. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 50 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p at the same Low preset drops the average to 41 FPS, a reduction of 18%. Moving further to 4K at Low settings yields an average of just 30 FPS, which is another 26.8% decrease from the 1440p figure and a full 40% drop from the 1080p baseline. This consistent scaling with resolution is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario.

The pattern holds across all settings presets. For instance, on the High preset, the system reports 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The frame rate is nearly halved when moving from 1080p to 4K on the same quality settings, which leaves little doubt that the Intel Arc B370's rendering capabilities are being saturated. The CPU, an Intel Core i5-12400 with 6 cores and 12 threads, is likely not the primary constraint here, as the performance degradation is so closely tied to the number of pixels being processed. The data suggests that reducing resolution would be the single most effective way to improve frame rates, but even at the lowest tested resolution and settings, the system only manages an average of 50 FPS.

This scaling behavior implies that the game's visual fidelity is being directly traded against resolution. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is significant, and the gap to 4K is even more punishing. For a user targeting higher resolutions, the performance headroom is simply not present. The frame rate drops are not linear but become more pronounced at higher resolutions, suggesting that the GPU's fillrate and memory bandwidth—which is "System Shared" and "System Dependent"—are being overwhelmed. The data shows a system that is functional at 1080p but struggles to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions, regardless of the quality preset chosen.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this hardware combination depends heavily on the user's target resolution and tolerance for frame rate. At 4K, the data shows that no settings preset provides a comfortable frame rate. The highest average FPS at 4K is 30, achievable on the Low preset, while Medium, High, and Ultra presets yield 23, 18, and 17 FPS respectively. All of these figures are below the threshold for smooth, responsive gameplay, indicating that 4K is not a viable target for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

At 1440p, the situation improves slightly. The Low preset delivers an average of 41 FPS, which may be acceptable for some, but the Medium preset drops to 32 FPS and High to 24 FPS. The data suggests that for a balance between visual quality and performance at 1440p, the Medium preset might be the highest setting that still offers a playable experience, though it comes with a minimum FPS of 27. For users who prioritize a smoother frame rate over visual fidelity, the Low preset is the clear choice, offering a 28% performance increase over Medium.

The most viable resolution for this system is clearly 1920x1080. Here, the Low preset achieves an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded for this combo. The Medium preset offers an average of 39 FPS with minimums of 33 FPS, which provides a more visually detailed experience while remaining largely playable. The High preset at 1080p drops to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS. Based on the data, the recommended configuration is to play at 1080p with the Medium preset, as it provides a meaningful improvement in visual quality over Low while still maintaining an average frame rate that is above 30 FPS. Alternatively, the Low preset at 1080p is the only tested configuration that comes close to a 60 FPS experience, making it the best option for users who demand the highest frame rates.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is a critical component in this analysis, and the benchmark data indicates it is the primary bottleneck. The GPU's performance, represented by its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This is an extremely low ranking, and its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which are significantly older and less capable parts. The deltaPct values show that the Arc B370 is virtually on par with these legacy parts, being only 0.2% and 0.5% slower, respectively. This context is crucial; the data shows that the GPU's raw compute power is on par with hardware from a previous era.

Its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which in a system with a dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 configuration, as supported by the i5-12400, may not be sufficient for the demands of a flight simulator that streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU's low pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are consistent with its low overall score and explain why it struggles so much at higher resolutions. The FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS is modest, and the data suggests that the GPU's fillrate and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, causing the significant frame rate drops observed when moving from 1080p to 4K.

The GPU's clock speeds, with a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, do not compensate for the low core counts and memory limitations. The shading units (1280), TMUs (40), and ROPs (20) are all relatively low compared to modern discrete GPUs, which explains the system's 5th percentile ranking. The data implies that this GPU is not designed for high-end gaming workloads. Its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator is severely constrained, and the measured FPS reflects this. The fact that it only manages 50 FPS at 1080p Low is a clear indicator of its limitations, and it suggests that any attempt to increase graphical fidelity will result in a disproportionate hit to performance.

FAQ

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

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 50, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is this system capable of running the game at 4K resolution?

A: While the game does run at 4K, the data shows it is not a playable experience. The best average FPS at 3840x2160 is 30 on Low settings, with other presets ranging from 17 to 23 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is 0.2% lower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and 0.5% lower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770, indicating it is on par with these much older graphics solutions.

Q: What is the best settings preset to use for a balance of quality and performance?

A: Based on the data, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 provides a good compromise, with an average FPS of 39 and a minimum FPS of 33, offering a more detailed image than Low without the significant performance cost of High or Ultra.

Q: Does the game's performance scale better with resolution or settings changes?

A: The data shows that resolution scaling has a dramatic impact. For example, on Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 30 at 4K, a 40% decrease, indicating the GPU's pixel throughput is a major limiting factor.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The lowest minimum FPS recorded is 20, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with the Medium settings preset.

CPU Role

While the GPU is clearly the primary bottleneck, the Intel Core i5-12400's role is still a factor in the overall performance, though it appears to be sufficient to avoid being the main constraint. The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores are respectable, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15989 and a single-core score of 2257. The CPU's percentile ranking versus all CPUs is 72nd, placing it above average. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7643, with a deltaPct of -0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-1355U, with a deltaPct of -0.3%, showing that it is competitive with a wide range of processors.

In the context of this game, the CPU's 6 performance cores are likely sufficient to feed the GPU with draw calls and simulation data, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU can process frames faster. The fact that the FPS scales so predictably with resolution suggests that the CPU is not holding the system back; if it were, we would expect to see a plateau or less significant FPS drops at higher resolutions. The CPU's performance in the 3DMark 16-thread test (5873) and max-thread test (5890) shows strong multi-threading capability, which is beneficial for a simulation game that needs to process complex flight models and world data.

However, the CPU's performance is not the saving grace here. Even with a capable CPU like the i5-12400, the system is still limited to 50 FPS at 1080p Low. This indicates that while the CPU is ready to do more work, the GPU cannot keep up. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield a far more significant performance improvement than upgrading the CPU. The i5-12400 is a solid mid-range processor, but it is paired with a very weak graphics solution, and the combination's overall ranking of 2770 out of 2996 combos in this game reflects this imbalance. The CPU is doing its part, but the Arc B370 is dragging down the entire system's performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a clear matrix of performance for this specific combo across all tested settings.

At 1920x1080, the system shows its best results. On the Low preset, it achieves an average FPS of 50. The Medium preset yields an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. Moving to High, the average drops to 30 FPS. The Ultra preset is the most demanding, producing an average of 28 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance declines further. The Low preset is the only one to break 40 FPS, with an average of 41. The Medium preset averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. The High preset averages 24 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 23 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system is heavily taxed. The Low preset manages an average of 30 FPS. The Medium preset falls to an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. The High preset drops to an average of 18 FPS, and the Ultra preset is the lowest of all, with an average of 17 FPS.

This breakdown shows a consistent pattern: for every resolution, the difference between Low and Ultra is significant, but the difference between consecutive resolutions at the same settings is equally impactful. For example, moving from 1080p Medium to 1440p Medium is an 18% drop, and moving from 1440p Medium to 4K Medium is a 28% drop. The data makes it clear that this system is only truly comfortable at 1080p with lower settings presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall ranking for this specific combination of the Intel Core i5-12400 and the Intel Arc B370 in Microsoft Flight Simulator is 2770 out of 2996 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 7.5% of all tested systems, which is a very low position. This ranking is a direct reflection of the GPU's limitations, as the CPU is a relatively capable part. The data shows that the average benchmark score for the CPU is 18683, which is above the 72nd percentile for all CPUs, while the GPU's average benchmark score is a mere 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile for all GPUs.

This massive disparity between the CPU's and GPU's relative performance levels is the defining characteristic of this combo. The system is inherently unbalanced, with a processor that is ready for more demanding workloads than the graphics card can handle. Consequently, the in-game ranking is dragged down by the GPU. The combo sits at rank 2770, meaning there are 226 other tested combinations that perform worse. While it is not the absolute worst, it is firmly in the lower echelon of systems for this title.

The data suggests that this is a configuration that would be best suited for low-resolution, low-detail gaming. The ranking implies that users with this combo would have a very poor experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator compared to the vast majority of other tested hardware pairings. The 5th percentile GPU ranking is a clear indicator that this is a bottom-tier gaming component, and the in-game rank of 2770 confirms that this holds true in a real-world, demanding game. The results are measured and clear: this pairing is not competitive for this title.