Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a notoriously demanding title, and the measured results for the Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the Intel Arc B370 place this combo in a very specific performance tier. The data indicates a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics processor, particularly as resolution increases. The Intel Arc B370, with its integrated graphics architecture, delivers playable frame rates only at the lowest settings and resolution, while the 6-core, 6-thread Intel Core i5-9400 provides a foundation that, while not top-tier, is sufficient to expose the GPU's limitations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep performance cliff as resolution scales from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At the "Low" settings preset, the average frame rate drops from 50 FPS at 1080p to 41 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 30 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40% reduction in average FPS from the lowest to the highest resolution tested. The pattern is consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the scaling penalty is tied directly to the number of pixels being rendered.

At "Ultra" settings, the drop is even more severe in percentage terms, falling from 28 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p and then to 17 FPS at 4K. This is a 39.3% decrease from 1080p to 4K. The narrowing gap between resolutions at higher settings, where 4K Ultra yields 17 FPS and 1080p Ultra yields 28 FPS, suggests that the limiting component is being saturated regardless of pixel count. The data implies that the Intel Arc B370's rendering capabilities are so constrained that increasing resolution has a diminishing absolute impact at the highest quality presets, as the GPU is already struggling to maintain even the lowest acceptable frame rates.

The scaling behavior strongly suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see a much smaller difference between 1080p and 4K, as the CPU workload for flight simulation physics and game logic would remain relatively constant. Instead, the average FPS drops by roughly 20 FPS going from 1080p Low to 4K Low, a clear indicator that the graphics processor's fill rate and shading throughput are being overwhelmed by the increased pixel workload. The system's overall performance is therefore dictated by the Arc B370's ability to process geometry and fragments, not by the i5-9400's processing power.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. In the context of this game, its role is to handle the simulation's complex physics, AI, and world-building logic. The benchmark data for the CPU shows a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 6629 and a single-core score of 935, placing it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs tested. This indicates a mid-range processor that is capable but not exceptional by modern standards.

However, the measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this pairing. Consider the 1080p results: at Low settings, the average FPS is 50, but at Ultra settings, it drops to 28. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to remain relatively stable across settings changes, as the CPU workload does not dramatically increase with graphical fidelity. The fact that the average FPS drops by 22 FPS between Low and Ultra at the same resolution indicates that the GPU is running out of performance headroom as the rendering complexity increases.

The CPU's 6 cores and 6 threads are sufficient to feed the Intel Arc B370 at lower settings, but the data shows a clear ceiling effect. At 4K, the average FPS at Low (30) is nearly double that at Ultra (17), reinforcing that the GPU is the limiting component. The i5-9400's performance, with a Geekbench multicore score of 5141, provides a stable platform, but this game's reliance on single-threaded performance, reflected in its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 935, is adequate to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck at the tested settings. The data indicates that the CPU has headroom to spare, as the FPS scaling is almost entirely dependent on the GPU's workload.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo can achieve?

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

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

A: Yes, but only at very low frame rates. The best 4K result is 30 FPS on "Low" settings, while "High," "Medium," and "Ultra" presets yield 18, 23, and 17 FPS respectively.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 39 at 1920x1080 to 32 at 2560x1440, a decrease of 7 FPS or roughly 17.9%.

Q: Which component is more likely to be the bottleneck in this system?

A: The benchmark results indicate the Intel Arc B370 GPU is the primary limiting factor. The evidence is that FPS scales significantly with resolution and settings changes, which is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck, while the CPU's performance metrics suggest it has sufficient headroom.

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.

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

A: The combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 and Intel Arc B370 combination is ranked 2770 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 7.5% of all tested hardware configurations, indicating that it is among the lower-performing setups for this specific title. The rank is a direct reflection of the measured FPS data, which shows the combo struggling to maintain smooth frame rates even at lower resolutions.

This low ranking is primarily attributable to the Intel Arc B370's position in the GPU hierarchy. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which are significantly older parts. The i5-9400, while not a top-tier CPU, is not the primary cause of the low rank; its 47th percentile standing among all CPUs is much more respectable. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield a substantial improvement in frame rates, as the CPU appears to have performance headroom that is currently untapped.

The 2770th rank implies that this system is only suitable for the most basic playable settings. The FPS data confirms this, as the only configuration that achieves a consistently playable frame rate (above 30 FPS) is 1080p with "Low" settings, which yields 50 FPS. Every other setting and resolution combination falls below or near the 30 FPS threshold, which is often considered the minimum for a playable experience in a flight simulator. This ranking underscores the severe GPU limitation that defines this hardware pairing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. The "Low" preset achieves an average of 50 FPS. The "Medium" preset drops to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45 FPS. The "High" preset averages 30 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 28 FPS. This resolution is the only one where the system approaches playability, and even then, only at the lowest quality settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades noticeably. The "Low" preset averages 41 FPS. The "Medium" preset averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36 FPS. The "High" preset averages 24 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 23 FPS. The frame rates at 1440p High and Ultra are below the 30 FPS threshold, making them difficult to play.

At 3840x2160, the system is severely challenged. The "Low" preset averages 30 FPS. The "Medium" preset averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27 FPS. The "High" preset averages 18 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 17 FPS. None of the 4K settings provide a smooth experience, and the frame rates are consistently below playable thresholds. The data shows a clear linear relationship between pixel count and performance degradation, with the GPU being the sole limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that offers a consistently smooth experience is 1920x1080 with the "Low" settings preset, which yields an average of 50 FPS. This is the recommended starting point for any user seeking a playable frame rate. The "Medium" preset at 1080p, with an average of 39 FPS and a minimum of 33 FPS, is also viable for users who prioritize visual quality over a higher frame rate, as it stays above the 30 FPS minimum threshold.

At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset is the only option that remains playable, with an average of 41 FPS. However, the "Medium" preset at 1440p, with an average of 32 FPS and a minimum of 27 FPS, may be acceptable for users who are willing to tolerate occasional dips below 30 FPS. For 4K resolution, no settings preset is recommended, as even the "Low" preset only achieves an average of 30 FPS, which is borderline for a flight simulator where smoothness is critical for precise control.

The data suggests that users should prioritize resolution over graphical fidelity. Dropping from "High" to "Low" settings at 1080p provides a 66.7% increase in average FPS (from 30 to 50), which is a significant improvement. Conversely, moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings provides a much smaller gain in visual clarity compared to the performance hit. The optimal experience, per the measured data, is to lock the resolution to 1920x1080 and adjust the settings preset to "Low" or "Medium" to maintain a consistent frame rate.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Its performance is characterized by a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The data clearly shows that this GPU is the primary bottleneck in this system, as its performance is insufficient for the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU's memory is "System Shared," meaning its bandwidth and capacity are dependent on the system's main memory, which is a significant limitation for a game that streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The measured FPS data reflects this constraint, as the system struggles to maintain high frame rates even at 1080p. The GPU's FP32 performance is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS, but this raw compute power is not effectively translated into game performance, likely due to memory bandwidth limitations and the overhead of shared memory access.

The benchmark results indicate that the Arc B370 is comparable to graphics cards from over a decade ago, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which has a similar average score. This contextualizes its performance: it is not a modern gaming GPU, and its role in this system is to provide basic graphical output rather than a high-fidelity gaming experience. The data suggests that for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this GPU is severely underpowered, and any attempt to run the game at higher settings or resolutions will result in sub-30 FPS performance. The GPU's low percentile ranking (5th) is the defining characteristic of this combo's overall poor performance.