Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-12400 + Intel Arc B390

This combination of Intel's 6-core Alder Lake processor and the integrated Arc B390 graphics solution produces playable results only at the lowest settings, with the data revealing a system heavily constrained by its graphics subsystem. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings show a pattern consistent with a GPU that ranks in the 9th percentile among all tested graphics cards, while the CPU sits in the 72nd percentile — a stark imbalance that defines every benchmark result in this flight simulator.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured result that approaches a smooth 60 FPS target, and it drops substantially as settings increase at the same resolution.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it just 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463) and 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460). It sits 2.5% above the GT 625 OEM (1446) and 2.7% above the GT 710 (1443), indicating performance in the entry-level graphics tier.

Q: What is the CPU's benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Core i5-12400 ranks in the 72nd percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18683. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7643 (18697, -0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-1355U (18730, -0.3% delta), showing remarkably tight competition.

Q: Does the resolution impact FPS more than the settings preset?

A: The data shows settings have a larger impact than resolution. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra (31 FPS) to Low (56 FPS) yields a 25 FPS gain, while moving from 1080p Low (56 FPS) to 4K Low (33 FPS) costs 23 FPS. Setting changes at a fixed resolution consistently produce wider swings than resolution changes at a fixed preset.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested system combinations?

A: This CPU-GPU pairing ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations tested for this specific game.

Q: Is the 4K Ultra preset playable with this hardware?

A: No. The 4K Ultra preset delivers an average of 19 FPS, identical to the 4K High preset. This falls well below playable thresholds, and even the 4K Low preset only reaches 33 FPS average.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the dominant limiting factor in this configuration. Its specifications paint a clear picture of an integrated graphics solution: 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, with a base clock of 300 MHz boosting to 2500 MHz. The memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, with bandwidth described as "system dependent" — meaning the GPU borrows from the CPU's memory pool rather than having dedicated VRAM.

The GPU's benchmark performance is underwhelming. Its single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts from the GT 500/600/700 series era. The 1.3% delta over the GT 520MX is within noise territory, but the pattern is consistent: this is entry-level integrated graphics performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the GPU's limitations manifest immediately. At 1080p Ultra, the combo produces 31 FPS average; at 4K Ultra, it drops to 19 FPS. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s provide theoretical ceilings that the game's dense terrain rendering and photogrammetry data clearly exceed. The FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS seems respectable on paper, but the shared memory architecture creates bandwidth bottlenecks that cripple real-world performance in a simulator known for streaming vast amounts of geographical data.

The GPU's 80 W TDP and IGP form factor (integrated graphics processor) explain why there are no power connectors and no dedicated display outputs beyond what the portable device provides. This is not a discrete card; it is the graphics block within a Panther Lake chip, using Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process. The data suggests the Arc B390 behaves like a very capable iGPU that is simply out of its depth in a demanding flight simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates reveal how severely this combo degrades as resolution increases. At Low settings, the progression is 56 FPS (1080p) → 45 FPS (1440p) → 33 FPS (4K). That is a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, followed by a 27% drop from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the same progression shows 43 → 35 → 26 FPS, representing 19% and 26% drops respectively. High settings follow with 33 → 26 → 19 FPS, a 21% then 27% decline.

The consistency of these percentage drops — roughly 20% per resolution step — indicates the system is uniformly GPU-bound across all resolution points. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rate would hold steadier at higher resolutions (as the CPU work stays constant while GPU load increases). Instead, every resolution increase exacts a proportional toll, which is the classic signature of a graphics bottleneck.

The 4K data points are particularly telling. At 4K, both High and Ultra presets produce exactly 19 FPS average. This plateau suggests the GPU has hit a hard ceiling where additional graphical features (the difference between High and Ultra) no longer matter because the pixel throughput alone saturates the hardware. The 4K Medium preset (26 FPS) and 4K Low (33 FPS) show there is headroom if settings are reduced, but the trend line makes clear that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo — even the lowest settings fail to reach 35 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

With a rank of 2665 out of 2996 tested combos, this pairing sits in the bottom 11% of all configurations benchmarked in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a profound mismatch: the CPU ranks in the 72nd percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile among all graphics cards. When combined, the weaker component drags the entire system down to near-bottom-tier performance.

This ranking pattern has an important implication. The combo's position is not a reflection of the CPU's capability — the i5-12400 is a solid mid-range processor that outperforms 72% of all CPUs tested. Rather, the iGPU bottleneck defines the experience entirely. The gap between the CPU's percentile (72) and the combo's rank (bottom 11%) quantifies how much performance the Arc B390 leaves on the table. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can scale across threads, the CPU could potentially drive far higher frame rates if paired with a discrete GPU.

The ranking also suggests that other combos with similar CPUs but discrete graphics cards likely achieve dramatically better results. The fact that this combo ranks below 89% of all tested configurations, despite having a CPU in the top 28%, underscores how severely integrated graphics can handicap an otherwise capable system.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400 provides the computational foundation for this system, and its specifications are impressive for a mainstream desktop part. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz boosting to 4.40 GHz. The Alder Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a 163 mm² die size, includes 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration.

The CPU's benchmark results demonstrate solid multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15989 and Geekbench multicore score of 8564 place it comfortably in mid-range territory. Single-thread performance is equally respectable: Cinebench R23 single-core of 2257 and Geekbench single-core of 1848. The PassMark multithread score of 18747 and 3DMark max threads score of 5890 further confirm the processor's ability to handle multi-threaded workloads.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle physics calculations, flight dynamics, and the simulation of weather systems, while the GPU renders the world. The data shows the CPU is not the bottleneck: at 1080p Low, the system achieves 56 FPS, which is likely near the CPU's good-enough threshold for this title. If the CPU were struggling, we would see frame rates collapse at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work — but instead, the frame rate climbs as resolution drops, indicating the GPU is always the limiting factor.

The nearest rival data reinforces this interpretation. The CPU sits within 0.9% of the Intel Core i3-14100F (18519) and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 330 (18811), showing that the i5-12400 is a well-balanced performer in its class. Its 65 W TDP and active production status suggest it remains a relevant choice for budget-to-midrange systems, but in this particular pairing, its capabilities are largely wasted.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo produces its best results. Low settings deliver 56 FPS average, which is the only playable result in the entire dataset. Medium settings drop to 43 FPS (with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50), High settings reach 33 FPS, and Ultra falls to 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS, representing a 45% performance penalty for maxing out the visual preset.

At 2560x1440, performance declines across the board. Low settings yield 45 FPS, Medium drops to 35 FPS (30 minimum, 40 maximum), High reaches 26 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 30 FPS is notable — it is the only 1440p measurement with a reported minimum above 30, and even that is marginal.

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently poor. Low settings manage 33 FPS, Medium achieves 26 FPS (22 minimum, 30 maximum), and both High and Ultra plateau at 19 FPS. The 4K Medium minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS shows significant frame pacing variability, which could make even the playable moments feel inconsistent.

Comparing settings across resolutions, the pattern is clear: Low settings provide roughly 1.7x the frame rate of Ultra settings at every resolution (56 vs 31 at 1080p, 45 vs 25 at 1440p, 33 vs 19 at 4K). This consistent ratio suggests the visual features enabled by higher presets — likely shadow quality, texture detail, and render distance — impose a fixed cost regardless of resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points toward a single viable configuration for a playable experience: 1080p with Low settings, producing 56 FPS average. This is the only preset-resolution combination that exceeds 50 FPS, and it is the clear choice for any user prioritizing smooth gameplay over visual fidelity.

At 1080p Medium, the 43 FPS average (with a 37 FPS minimum) hovers at the edge of playability for a flight simulator, where slower camera movements are more forgiving of lower frame rates than in fast-paced genres. Users who value visual detail over smoothness could accept this trade-off, but the 13 FPS drop from Low is substantial. The 1080p High (33 FPS) and Ultra (31 FPS) presets offer no meaningful advantage over Medium — the 10 FPS gap between Medium and High is larger than the 2 FPS gap between High and Ultra, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

At 1440p, only Low settings (45 FPS) come close to playable, while Medium (35 FPS) is borderline and High/Ultra (26/25 FPS) are not recommended. At 4K, even Low settings (33 FPS) fall below the threshold for comfortable play, making 4K a non-viable resolution for this hardware in this game.

The data implies a recommendation hierarchy: first, set resolution to 1080p. Second, start with Low settings and increment to Medium only if the 13 FPS sacrifice is acceptable. The High and Ultra presets at any resolution deliver average frame rates in the 19-33 FPS range, which the minimum frame rates at Medium (37 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, 22 FPS at 4K) suggest could dip into single digits during complex scenes. For a simulator where smooth visual flow contributes to the sense of flight, 1080p Low at 56 FPS is the only configuration the evidence supports as a primary recommendation.