Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a compelling case study in system bottlenecking within Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data reveals a configuration where the processor’s substantial multi-threaded capabilities are consistently restrained by a graphics solution that ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, contextualizes each component's role, and provides clear guidance based solely on the empirical evidence.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core i5-12400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the Alder Lake-S architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its base clock of 2.50 GHz can boost up to 4.40 GHz, and it carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates a strong profile: it scores 12,380 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,680 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 9,472. Its Passmark multi-thread score of 19,433 and a 73rd percentile ranking against all CPUs indicate a capable mid-range processor that should not be the primary constraint in most gaming scenarios.

However, the measured frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator tell a different story when this CPU is paired with the Arc B390. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 56 FPS average. When moving to 1080p Ultra, that figure drops to 31 FPS. This 25 FPS delta is substantial, but the CPU's own benchmark data suggests it has headroom. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 5,895 and max-thread score of 5,912 show the processor can handle significant parallel workloads. The question becomes whether Flight Simulator's engine is leveraging those threads effectively, or if the GPU is simply incapable of keeping pace regardless of CPU readiness.

The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (avg score 19,047, deltaPct 0) and Intel Core i5-1335U (avg score 18,982, deltaPct 0.3), show the 12400F is competitively positioned in raw compute. Yet in-game, the bottleneck shifts decisively. The 1080p Medium result of 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS, suggests that even modest settings overwhelm the graphics subsystem. The CPU appears to be waiting on the GPU to deliver frames, evidenced by the fact that raising settings from Low to Medium at 1080p costs only 13 FPS (56 to 43), while the CPU's single-thread performance (909 in 3DMark single-thread) remains more than adequate for the game's simulation logic.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves at 1080p, and at which settings?

A: The highest average FPS at 1920x1080 is 56 FPS, achieved at Low settings. The Medium preset delivers 43 FPS, High delivers 33 FPS, and Ultra drops to 31 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark percentile compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1,482. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1,463 with a deltaPct of 1.3, meaning the Arc B390 is only 1.3% faster. The GeForce GT 710 trails by 2.7%.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at 1440p Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combo produces an average of 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. This 10 FPS spread between min and max indicates relatively stable frame pacing for this configuration.

Q: Does the CPU's multi-threaded performance suggest it is the limiting factor?

A: No. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12,380 and Passmark multi-thread score of 19,433 place it well above average. The 12-thread configuration and 4.40 GHz boost clock provide ample compute. The data indicates the GPU's 9th percentile ranking is the primary constraint.

Q: How many total combinations does this combo rank against in this game?

A: The combo ranks 2,665 out of 2,996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower percentile of all possible CPU/GPU pairings for this title.

Q: What is the FPS penalty for moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At 1080p High, the average FPS is 33. At 3840x2160 High, the average FPS drops to 19. This represents a 14 FPS reduction, or roughly a 42% decrease in performance when quadrupling the pixel count.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling pattern is revealing. At Low settings, the FPS progression from 1080p to 4K is: 56 FPS at 1920x1080, 45 FPS at 2560x1440, and 33 FPS at 3840x2160. This is a 23 FPS drop from 1080p to 4K, representing a 41% reduction. At High settings, the same progression yields 33 FPS, 26 FPS, and 19 FPS respectively—a 14 FPS drop (42% reduction). The consistency of these percentage drops across settings strongly indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU's load does not scale linearly with resolution.

The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system cannot reach 60 FPS, achieving only 56 FPS. This is a critical indicator. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see higher frame rates at lower resolutions where the GPU has less work. Instead, the GPU appears saturated even at the lowest settings. The 4K Ultra result of 19 FPS matches the 4K High result of 19 FPS, suggesting that beyond a certain point, the GPU is completely maxed out and additional settings increases do not further reduce performance because the renderer is already at its limit.

The medium settings provide the most granular data, with min/max FPS recorded. At 1080p Medium, the range is 37-50 FPS (average 43). At 1440p Medium, the range is 30-40 FPS (average 35). At 4K Medium, the range is 22-30 FPS (average 26). These ranges show that as resolution increases, both the average and the ceiling drop, but the floor also drops proportionally. This consistent scaling pattern—where each resolution step reduces FPS by roughly 20-25%—is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, not a CPU-bound one.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 56 FPS average
• Medium: 43 FPS average (min 37, max 50)
• High: 33 FPS average
• Ultra: 31 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 45 FPS average
• Medium: 35 FPS average (min 30, max 40)
• High: 26 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 33 FPS average
• Medium: 26 FPS average (min 22, max 30)
• High: 19 FPS average
• Ultra: 19 FPS average

The 1080p data shows a clear hierarchy: Low is the only preset that approaches playability, and even then it falls short of 60 FPS. Moving from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 13 FPS, but moving from High to Ultra only costs 2 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset is not meaningfully more demanding than High for this GPU, or that the GPU is already so constrained that the extra settings do not matter. At 1440p, the pattern repeats: Low to Medium costs 10 FPS, High to Ultra costs only 1 FPS. At 4K, Low to Medium costs 7 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 0 FPS—the identical 19 FPS averages indicate the GPU is completely saturated at both settings.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It features 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz. Its memory configuration is entirely "System Shared," meaning it relies on the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The GPU's pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS.

The GPU's benchmark results are stark. Its only recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are ancient NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1,463, deltaPct 1.3), GeForce 800M (1,460, deltaPct 1.5), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446, deltaPct 2.5), and GeForce GT 710 (1,443, deltaPct 2.7). This places the Arc B390's performance in the same league as entry-level GPUs from over a decade ago, which explains the sub-60 FPS results even at 1080p Low.

The system-shared memory architecture is a key factor. With no dedicated VRAM bandwidth figure—listed as "System Dependent"—the GPU's performance is tied to the system memory bandwidth and latency. In a simulation game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and aircraft data, this shared memory arrangement likely introduces additional latency and bandwidth contention. The 12 RT cores are present, but given the raw performance ceiling, ray tracing capabilities are unlikely to be usable in this title at playable frame rates.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based strictly on the measured data, the optimal settings depend on the user's resolution and tolerance for frame rate variability. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 56 FPS average, which is the only measured configuration that approaches smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS, which may be acceptable for a flight simulator where precise timing is less critical than in fast-paced action games. The High preset at 33 FPS and Ultra at 31 FPS are likely too choppy for a satisfactory experience.

At 1440p, the Low preset achieves 45 FPS, which is the best available at that resolution. The Medium preset at 35 FPS (min 30, max 40) provides a more balanced visual experience but drops below the 30 FPS threshold in demanding moments. At 4K, no preset is truly playable: Low delivers 33 FPS, Medium 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra sit at 19 FPS. The data suggests that for 4K users, the Low preset is the only viable option, and even then, the experience will be suboptimal.

The recommendation hierarchy is clear: for 1080p, choose Low for maximum smoothness or Medium if visual fidelity is prioritized over the 13 FPS difference. For 1440p, Low is the only sensible choice. For 4K, users should expect a slideshow regardless of settings, and the Low preset at 33 FPS is the least objectionable. The Ultra preset offers no measurable benefit over High at 4K (both 19 FPS), so users should never select Ultra at 4K.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of Intel Core i5-12400F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2,665 out of 2,996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all CPU/GPU pairings tested for this game. The rank is unsurprising given the GPU's 9th percentile standing and the game's known demanding nature. What is notable is that the CPU, which ranks in the 73rd percentile, is far more capable than the GPU, creating a significant mismatch.

The combo's ranking suggests that users with this configuration are experiencing one of the worst possible outcomes for this title. The 331 combinations that rank below this one likely feature even older or more constrained hardware. The data implies that the GPU is holding back the entire system to a severe degree. In fact, the GPU's nearest rivals—the GT 520MX, 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710—are all legacy parts from a different era of gaming, and the Arc B390 only marginally outperforms them by 1.3% to 2.7%.

This ranking also contextualizes the measured FPS. A system ranked 2,665th out of 2,996 is expected to struggle, and the data confirms this: no resolution/settings combination achieves 60 FPS, and only 1080p Low (56 FPS) comes close. The 4K Ultra result of 19 FPS is consistent with a bottom-decile ranking. For anyone considering this combo for Flight Simulator, the data strongly indicates that the GPU should be upgraded first, as the CPU has substantial headroom that is being wasted. The 2,665th rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities but rather the GPU's severe limitations in this specific game.