Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both processor and graphics hardware, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and Intel Arc B390 produces a specific performance profile that is heavily skewed by resolution and settings. The benchmark data reveals a system that is generally capable of playable frame rates at 1080p with adjusted settings, but which struggles significantly at higher resolutions and maximum graphical presets. This analysis breaks down the measured results to explain where the bottlenecks lie and how to configure the game for the best experience on this hardware pairing.

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

The Intel Core i5-13400F is a 10-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. In synthetic benchmarks, this CPU demonstrates solid multi-threaded performance, scoring 22,604 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,191 in single-core. Its average benchmark score of 25,292 places it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that it is a strong performer for its class. Directly comparing its average score to its nearest rivals shows a statistical tie: it scores 0% delta versus the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS (25,284), is 0.3% behind both the Intel Core 5 120 (25,362) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365), and is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H (25,201).

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for simulating the world, processing flight physics, and managing the massive amount of terrain and object data. The measured FPS data suggests that the i5-13400F is not the primary limiting factor at lower resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to push frame rates from 31 FPS at Ultra settings to 56 FPS at Low settings. This range indicates that the processor can deliver data quickly enough to allow the GPU to render frames at a pace of over 50 FPS when graphical load is low. The jump from 43 FPS at Medium to 56 FPS at Low shows that the CPU is not capping performance at that level; rather, the GPU's workload is the deciding factor.

However, as resolution increases, the CPU's role becomes more about maintaining a stable minimum frame rate. The data shows that at 1440p and 4K, the FPS drops are substantial, but this is largely due to the increased pixel count taxing the GPU. The CPU's strong multi-threading, evidenced by its 3DMark scores (7,314 for 16 threads and 7,307 for max threads), ensures that it can keep up with the simulation's demands even when the GPU is struggling. The lack of a significant difference between the 1080p and 4K FPS at Ultra settings (31 FPS vs 19 FPS) suggests that the CPU is not the sole bottleneck; it is feeding the GPU as fast as it can, but the GPU cannot render the higher resolution frames quickly enough.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. It has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). Critically, its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a major factor in its performance. The GPU's pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with a FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS.

The Arc B390's benchmark score is notably low. It scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all older, low-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1,463, 1.3% slower), GeForce 800M (1,460, 1.5% slower), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446, 2.5% slower), and GeForce GT 710 (1,443, 2.7% slower). This performance class is extremely limited for a modern, demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU's role in this game is to render the scenery, textures, and lighting. The measured FPS data shows that the Arc B390 is the primary bottleneck in almost all scenarios. At 1080p with Low settings, the GPU can manage 56 FPS, but this drops to 43 FPS at Medium and 33 FPS at High. The jump from Low to Medium (a 13 FPS drop) is steep, indicating that the GPU is quickly overwhelmed by additional texture detail and effects. The fact that the GPU's memory is shared with the system is a likely contributor to this poor scaling; as the game loads more assets, it competes with the OS and CPU for memory bandwidth, which cripples performance. The boost clock of 2500 MHz is not enough to compensate for the lack of dedicated memory, and the system-dependent bandwidth becomes a severe limitation.

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

Given the measured data, the optimal settings for this hardware pairing depend heavily on the target resolution. The data shows a playable experience, defined as maintaining an average FPS above 30, is only achievable at 1080p with Medium settings or lower. At 1080p, the Low preset yields 56 FPS, which is very smooth and likely provides the most responsive experience. The Medium preset, at 43 FPS, is also playable and offers a better visual balance than Low, with a minimum FPS of 37 ensuring that frame drops are not too jarring. The High preset (33 FPS) is borderline, but the Ultra preset (31 FPS) is right at the edge of playability and offers a marginal visual improvement over High for a significant performance cost.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more difficult. The Low preset yields 45 FPS, which is playable, but the Medium preset drops to 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS. This makes Medium at 1440p a risky choice for a consistent experience, as the minimum frame rate is right at the playability threshold. High (26 FPS) and Ultra (25 FPS) are not recommended for smooth gameplay, as they fall below the 30 FPS threshold. At 4K, none of the settings achieve a playable average FPS; even Low only reaches 33 FPS, and Medium drops to 26 FPS. The recommendation is clear: for the best experience, prioritize 1080p resolution and use the Medium preset as the sweet spot, as it provides a solid 43 FPS with a reasonable minimum of 37 FPS, balancing visual fidelity with smoothness. If a higher frame rate is desired, the Low preset is the fallback.

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

Q: What is the best resolution to play Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware?

A: According to the measured data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution that consistently achieves playable frame rates. At 1080p, the average FPS ranges from 31 (Ultra) to 56 (Low), while at 1440p the average FPS ranges from 25 (Ultra) to 45 (Low), and at 4K it ranges from 19 (Ultra/High) to 33 (Low).

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to the Low preset at 1080p?

A: The data shows that at 1080p, the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS, while the Low preset averages 56 FPS. This represents a performance improvement of 25 FPS, or roughly 81% higher frame rate, when switching from Ultra to Low.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-13400F a bottleneck for the Intel Arc B390 in this game?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. At 1080p, the FPS scales significantly with graphical settings (from 31 FPS at Ultra to 56 FPS at Low), which implies the GPU is limiting performance. The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores (22,604 in Cinebench R23 multi-core) suggest it has enough headroom to feed the GPU.

Q: What is the minimum FPS I can expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: The measured data for 2560x1440 with Medium settings shows an average FPS of 35, with a minimum FPS of 30 and a maximum FPS of 40. This indicates that the frame rate can dip to 30 FPS, which is the borderline for smooth playability.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K with any settings?

A: The data shows that no 4K preset achieves a playable average frame rate. The highest average FPS at 4K is 33 FPS on the Low preset, but this drops to 26 FPS on Medium and 19 FPS on both High and Ultra. These averages are below the 30 FPS threshold for a smooth experience.

Q: How does the Arc B390's performance compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1,482. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1,463, which is 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M scores 1,460 (1.5% lower), the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446 (2.5% lower), and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443 (2.7% lower).

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

The scaling of frame rates across resolutions provides clear insight into the system's limiting component. When moving from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K, the average FPS drops significantly, but the drop pattern is not uniform. At Low settings, the FPS goes from 56 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p and then to 33 at 4K. This is a drop of 11 FPS (about 20%) from 1080p to 1440p, and a further drop of 12 FPS (about 27%) from 1440p to 4K. The performance decline is roughly linear, which suggests that the GPU is being tasked with rendering an increasing number of pixels, and its fixed shading units and TMUs are struggling to keep up.

At Ultra settings, the FPS goes from 31 at 1080p to 25 at 1440p and finally to 19 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is 6 FPS (about 19%), and from 1440p to 4K is another 6 FPS (about 24%). The relative drop is similar across settings, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU's workload (simulation and physics) does not change with resolution. The fact that FPS drops by roughly 20-25% for each major resolution step confirms that the Intel Arc B390 is the component holding back performance. The GPU's low compute power (7.680 TFLOPS FP32) and shared memory architecture are simply not equipped to handle the pixel throughput required at 1440p and 4K in a heavy simulation title.

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

At 1920x1080, the benchmark provides a full range of settings. The Low preset delivers the highest average FPS at 56. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50 FPS. The High preset averages 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. This shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Low preset being the only one that provides a substantial margin above the 60 FPS target, while Ultra is barely playable.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS figures are lower across the board. The Low preset averages 45 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40 FPS. The High preset averages 26 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. This data indicates that 1440p is only viable with Low or Medium settings, and even then, the Medium preset's minimum FPS of 30 is on the edge of playability.

At 3840x2160, the performance is severely limited. The Low preset averages 33 FPS, which is the highest score at this resolution. The Medium preset averages 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30 FPS. Both the High and Ultra presets average 19 FPS. None of these averages meet the 30 FPS standard for a smooth experience, making 4K impractical for this hardware combination. The data consistently shows that the Intel Arc B390 is a low-end GPU that can only handle the game at 1080p with reduced settings.