Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-12400F + Intel Arc B370

This combination pairs a mid-range 12th Gen Intel desktop processor with an integrated-class Intel Arc B370 GPU, producing results that are heavily constrained by the graphics side in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a system that can achieve playable frame rates only at the lowest settings and resolution, with the GPU percentile ranking at just 5th among all tested graphics cards, while the CPU sits in the 73rd percentile.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU-bound configuration. At 1080p Low, the system averages 50 FPS; stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 41 FPS (an 18% reduction), and 4K Low falls to 30 FPS (a 40% reduction from 1080p). The scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings shows a 20 FPS loss, indicating that the rendering pipeline becomes progressively more strained as pixel count rises.

The pattern intensifies at higher quality presets. At High settings, the drop from 1080p (30 FPS) to 1440p (24 FPS) represents a 20% loss, and then 4K High collapses to 18 FPS — a full 40% below the 1080p result. This nonlinear degradation suggests that the GPU's limited shading resources (1280 shading units) are overwhelmed by the combination of increased resolution and more complex rendering passes.

Ultra settings tell an even more telling story. The 1080p Ultra average of 28 FPS falls to 23 FPS at 1440p and then to 17 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 11 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the Low-setting gap but starts from a much lower baseline. What this implies is that the GPU is the limiting component across all resolutions; the CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are not the bottleneck here, as evidenced by the relatively modest frame rate declines that track closely with pixel-count increases.

Looking at the Medium preset, which includes min/max data, reveals additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 39 FPS with a range of 33 to 45 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 32 FPS (27–36 FPS range), and at 4K Medium, it falls to 23 FPS (20–27 FPS). The frame time consistency appears to hold up reasonably well at each resolution, but the absolute values remain low, reinforcing that this is a GPU-limited scenario where resolution scaling directly translates to proportional performance loss.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its specifications are modest: 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units, with 10 ray tracing cores. The base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2400 MHz, and it relies on system shared memory — meaning there is no dedicated VRAM, and memory bandwidth is described as system dependent.

In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, this GPU scores 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in that benchmark are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4% delta). These comparisons underscore how far behind modern discrete graphics this integrated part sits.

The lack of dedicated VRAM is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for streaming large texture datasets. With system shared memory, the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and the data shows this manifests as consistently low frame rates. The 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate provide theoretical ceilings that the measured results never approach at higher settings.

The GPU's 25 W TDP and IGP form factor indicate this is designed for low-power systems, not gaming performance. The fact that 4K Ultra produces just 17 FPS and 4K High only 18 FPS suggests that the GPU's rendering capabilities are exhausted well before the CPU could become a factor. Even at 1080p Low, the 50 FPS average is the highest result in the entire dataset, and it still falls short of what most users would consider smooth for a flight simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 7.5% of all systems evaluated. This is a remarkably low position that reflects the GPU's severe limitations rather than any deficiency in the CPU, which itself ranks in the 73rd percentile among all processors.

To contextualize the CPU's contribution, the Intel Core i5-12400F has an average benchmark score of 19039, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0% delta), Intel Core 3 201E (19056, -0.1% delta), Intel Core i5-1335U (18982, +0.3% delta), and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, +0.3% delta). This places the processor in a competitive mid-range tier, but the GPU's 5th percentile standing drags the entire combo down.

The disparity between CPU and GPU performance potential explains why the frame rates are so low. In a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which can be CPU-intensive for physics and AI calculations, the 6-core/12-thread i5-12400F with its 4.40 GHz boost clock should provide adequate processing headroom. Yet the measured data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system only manages 50 FPS, a figure that would likely be much higher if the GPU were not the limiting factor.

The rank of 2770 out of 2996 suggests that nearly all other tested combos deliver better performance in this specific game. This makes sense given the GPU's position relative to even decade-old discrete graphics cards like the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which slightly outperforms it in synthetic benchmarks.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset spans three resolutions and four quality presets, providing a comprehensive picture of performance:

At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are uniformly low:

• Low: 30 FPS average
• Medium: 23 FPS average (20 min, 27 max)
• High: 18 FPS average
• Ultra: 17 FPS average

At 2560x1440 (1440p), performance improves but remains marginal:

• Low: 41 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average (27 min, 36 max)
• High: 24 FPS average
• Ultra: 23 FPS average

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system approaches playability only at lower settings:

• Low: 50 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average (33 min, 45 max)
• High: 30 FPS average
• Ultra: 28 FPS average

The Medium preset is the only one with min/max data at all three resolutions, showing that frame pacing remains relatively stable even as resolution changes. At 1080p, the 33–45 FPS range indicates a spread of 12 FPS; at 1440p, the 27–36 FPS range shows a 9 FPS spread; and at 4K, the 20–27 FPS range narrows to 7 FPS. This tightening of the frame time distribution at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is consistently saturated, leaving little variation in frame delivery.

The jump from Low to Medium settings at any given resolution costs approximately 9–11 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 7–9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 1–2 FPS. This diminishing impact of higher settings beyond Medium indicates that the GPU is already near its limits at Medium, and the additional quality presets primarily affect visual fidelity without proportionally taxing the hardware further.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other configuration reaches 50 FPS, and the next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: At 4K, the best result is 30 FPS on Low settings, with Medium at 23 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. None of these meet typical playability thresholds for a flight simulator, suggesting 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Arc B370 scores 1184. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, +1.4% delta).

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

A: At 1080p, Low averages 50 FPS while Ultra averages 28 FPS, a difference of 22 FPS. This represents a 44% performance reduction for the highest quality preset.

Q: Does the CPU performance match the GPU performance in this combo?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-12400F ranks in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 19039, while the Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile with a score of 1184. The GPU is clearly the weaker component.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: This combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 7.5% of all systems benchmarked.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only preset that approaches acceptable playability is 1080p Low, which delivers a 50 FPS average. This is the sole configuration where the system exceeds 45 FPS, and it is the recommended starting point for any user seeking smooth performance. The 1080p Medium preset at 39 FPS is a viable alternative for those prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, though users should expect occasional dips to 33 FPS.

At 1440p, the Low preset at 41 FPS is the only option above 40 FPS, making it the best choice for higher resolution displays. The 1440p Medium preset at 32 FPS (27–36 FPS range) may be acceptable for users who can tolerate frame rates in the low 30s, but it represents a compromise between resolution and smoothness.

For 4K displays, none of the presets deliver playable performance. The Low preset at 30 FPS is marginal at best, and the Medium preset at 23 FPS (20–27 FPS) will likely feel stuttery. Users with 4K monitors should consider lowering the resolution to 1440p or 1080p rather than accepting these frame rates.

The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p it produces 28 FPS, at 1440p it drops to 23 FPS, and at 4K it falls to 17 FPS — all below what most users would find acceptable for a flight simulator that requires precise control inputs. The 1–2 FPS difference between High and Ultra suggests that Ultra offers negligible performance benefit over High while consuming additional GPU resources.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake architecture, based on a 10 nm process. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache, totaling 163 mm² of die area.

In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates solid mid-range performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 12380 and single-core is 1680; Geekbench shows 9472 multicore and 1964 single-core; and 3DMark results range from 909 single-thread to 5912 max-threads. These numbers place it well above the GPU's performance tier, confirming that the processor is not the primary constraint in this system.

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0% delta) and Intel Core 3 201E (19056, -0.1% delta), indicating it sits in a competitive performance band. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 5895 and 2-thread score of 1699 show that the processor scales reasonably well with thread count, though the 12-thread configuration is sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's typical workload.

Given that the GPU is the limiting factor, the CPU's role in this combo is to provide adequate processing power without introducing bottlenecks. The fact that frame rates scale almost entirely with resolution and settings — rather than showing CPU-related stutters or inconsistencies — suggests the i5-12400F is doing its job. The PassMark multithread score of 19433 and single-thread score of 3481 provide additional evidence of capable processing performance that is being underutilized due to GPU constraints.

The 73rd percentile CPU ranking versus the 5th percentile GPU ranking highlights a significant imbalance in this pairing. Users considering this combo should understand that upgrading the GPU would yield far greater performance gains than upgrading the CPU, as the current configuration is overwhelmingly graphics-limited.