Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-9400 + Intel Arc B570

The Intel Core i5-9400 paired with the Intel Arc B570 represents a mid-range desktop combination that produces playable but not exceptional results in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The benchmark data shows this combo ranking 2406th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of all systems tested. This pairing of a Coffee Lake six-core CPU with a Battlemage GPU delivers average frame rates ranging from 28 FPS at 4K Ultra to 86 FPS at 1080p Low, indicating that the combination is capable of smooth performance only at lower resolutions and settings.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases, with the gap between 1080p and 4K varying significantly depending on the settings preset. At Low settings, the system produces 86 FPS at 1920x1080, dropping to 69 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 51 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 40.7% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, suggesting the GPU is the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions. The scaling from 1440p to 4K shows a 26.1% drop in performance, which is consistent with the increased pixel count demanding more fill rate and memory bandwidth.

At Medium settings, the frame rates shift to 67 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 40 FPS at 4K, with the 1080p-to-4K drop being 40.3%. The High preset yields 50 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K, a 40% reduction from the lowest to highest resolution. The Ultra preset shows the steepest absolute decline, moving from 48 FPS at 1080p to 39 FPS at 1440p and finally 28 FPS at 4K, a 41.7% drop. The consistency of these percentage drops across all settings indicates that resolution scaling is uniform and primarily GPU-bound, with the Arc B570's 10 GB of GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth becoming increasingly stressed at higher pixel counts.

The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU may be playing a more significant role in performance, as the frame rates above 80 FPS at Low settings approach the limits of what a six-core, six-thread processor with a 4.10 GHz boost clock can deliver in this flight simulator. However, the uniform percentage drops across all presets point to the GPU being the dominant constraint when moving from 1440p to 4K. The 19.6 billion transistor GPU on a 272 mm² die with a 2500 MHz boost clock shows diminishing returns as resolution increases, which is typical for a mid-range graphics card in a simulation title that is known for heavy rendering loads.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570, built on the Xe2-HPG architecture with a 5 nm process from TSMC, contributes 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units to the rendering pipeline. The 18 ray tracing cores and 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 compute power provide the raw throughput needed for Microsoft Flight Simulator's complex geometry and lighting calculations. The GPU's 10 GB of GDDR6 memory operates at 2375 MHz with a 160-bit bus, yielding 380.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is a critical factor for a game that streams vast amounts of terrain and aircraft data.

Benchmark results place the Arc B570 in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20,556. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% faster), the Intel Arc A750 (0.1% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (0.4% faster), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (0.5% slower). This clustering indicates that the B570 performs within a tight band of mid-range graphics solutions, and the measured FPS data in this game reflects that positioning, with 4K Ultra yielding just 28 FPS and 1080p Low reaching 86 FPS.

The GPU's clock behavior shows a base and boost clock both at 2500 MHz, which is notable for its consistency. The 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate suggest that the card is well-balanced for pixel-heavy workloads, though the flight simulator's draw calls and object density may stress the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The 150 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate a power-efficient solution, though the suggested 450 W PSU requirement means users need adequate power delivery. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support with feature level 12_2 ensures compatibility with modern rendering techniques, while the Vulkan 1.4 API support provides an alternative pathway for performance optimization.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 provides six physical cores and six threads, operating at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. This Coffee Lake refresh processor, built on Intel's 14 nm process, has a 9 MB shared L3 cache and 256 KB L2 cache per core, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth is a potential bottleneck for a simulator that loads large scenery files, though the 65 W TDP suggests efficient operation. The CPU's benchmark scores show a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6,629 and single-core score of 935, which places it in the 47th percentile among all CPUs.

Comparing the i5-9400 to its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i7-1068NG7 scores 0.2% higher, the Intel Core i7-10710U scores 0.3% lower, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 scores 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i3-10305 scores 0.4% higher. These minuscule deltas, all within 0.4%, indicate that the i5-9400 performs essentially identically to these alternatives in synthetic benchmarks. The average benchmark score of 2,254 further confirms this mid-range positioning, with the CPU's 6 threads being a limitation for games that can utilize more than six threads effectively.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is apparent when examining the frame rate differences between settings at the same resolution. At 1080p, the jump from Low (86 FPS) to Medium (67 FPS) represents a 22.1% performance hit, while the jump from High (50 FPS) to Ultra (48 FPS) is only a 4% reduction. This pattern suggests that at lower settings, the GPU has headroom but the CPU may be limiting the maximum achievable frame rate, while at higher settings, the GPU workload increases disproportionately. The 6-core, 6-thread configuration without hyper-threading means that the simulator's multi-threaded rendering and physics calculations must share the available execution units, potentially creating bottlenecks in complex flight scenarios.

How This Combo Ranks

The Intel Core i5-9400 and Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2406th out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 19.7th percentile of all systems tested. This ranking indicates that while the combination is functional, it sits well below the median performance tier for this specific game. The 590-combo gap between this pairing and the middle of the field suggests that many systems with more powerful CPUs or GPUs achieve substantially higher frame rates in this simulator.

The ranking's position relative to the GPU's 65th percentile and CPU's 47th percentile globally illustrates that this game presents a unique challenge. The GPU is relatively stronger than the CPU in the broader benchmark landscape, yet the combo rank suggests that the CPU may be dragging down overall performance in this title. The gap between the combo's performance and what the GPU alone might suggest indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly sensitive to CPU performance, likely due to its complex flight physics, weather simulation, and world streaming calculations.

When compared to other combinations involving similar GPUs, the data implies that pairing the Arc B570 with a stronger CPU could yield better results. The CPU's 6 threads and 4.10 GHz boost clock are sufficient for basic operation but may struggle in dense urban environments or with high aircraft detail settings. The 47th percentile CPU ranking combined with the 65th percentile GPU ranking creates a system that is more GPU-capable than CPU-capable, which is not ideal for a game that appears to reward stronger processors.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combination depend on the user's resolution and frame rate priorities. At 1920x1080, the High preset delivers 50 FPS average, which is smooth enough for most flight simulation scenarios, while the Medium preset at 67 FPS provides a substantial margin of headroom for complex scenes. The Low preset at 86 FPS offers the highest performance but sacrifices visual fidelity, which may diminish the immersive experience that flight simulators are known for. The Ultra preset at 48 FPS is playable but may dip below acceptable levels during heavy scenery loads.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 54 FPS appears to be the sweet spot, offering a balance between visual quality and performance. The High preset at 41 FPS is borderline, and the Low preset at 69 FPS is the only option that provides comfortable frame rates at this resolution. The Ultra preset at 39 FPS is likely too demanding for consistent playability, especially considering that the measured Medium preset shows a minimum of 46 FPS, suggesting that real-world performance can dip below the average.

For 3840x2160, only the Low preset at 51 FPS provides acceptable performance, with Medium at 40 FPS and High at 30 FPS being marginal, and Ultra at 28 FPS being unsuitable for smooth gameplay. Users with 4K displays should strongly consider running at 1440p or 1080p and scaling up, or accepting reduced settings to maintain playable frame rates. The Medium preset at 4K does show a minimum of 34 FPS, indicating that the system can maintain at least 30 FPS in most scenarios, but this is insufficient for a smooth experience in a simulator where precise control is important.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces 86 FPS at Low settings, 67 FPS at Medium with a minimum of 57 FPS and maximum of 77 FPS, 50 FPS at High, and 48 FPS at Ultra. The 1080p Medium preset offers the best combination of visual quality and frame rate stability, with the minimum 57 FPS ensuring no major stutters. The jump from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest settings.

At 2560x1440, the measured values are 69 FPS at Low, 54 FPS at Medium with a minimum of 46 FPS and maximum of 62 FPS, 41 FPS at High, and 39 FPS at Ultra. The transition from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings results in a 19.8% drop at Low, a 19.4% drop at Medium, an 18% drop at High, and an 18.8% drop at Ultra. These consistent reductions confirm that the GPU is the primary scaling factor across resolutions.

At 3840x2160, the data shows 51 FPS at Low, 40 FPS at Medium with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS, 30 FPS at High, and 28 FPS at Ultra. The 4K Medium preset's minimum of 34 FPS indicates that the system can maintain playable performance in most scenes, but the High and Ultra presets fall below the 30 FPS threshold that is generally considered the minimum for flight simulators. The 4K Low preset at 51 FPS is the only configuration that provides a comfortable experience at this resolution.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU-GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data indicates that 1920x1080 is the most suitable resolution, with all four settings presets producing frame rates above 48 FPS. At 2560x1440, only the Low and Medium presets exceed 50 FPS, while at 3840x2160, only the Low preset exceeds 50 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20,556, which is 0.1% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534), 0.1% higher than the Intel Arc A750 (20,582), 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20,480), and 0.5% lower than the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662).

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-9400 a bottleneck for the Intel Arc B570 in this game?

A: The combo ranks 2406th out of 2,996 systems, while the CPU ranks in the 47th percentile and the GPU ranks in the 65th percentile. The discrepancy suggests the CPU may be limiting performance, particularly at 1080p where frame rates reach 86 FPS at Low settings.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p and 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the system produces 67 FPS at 1080p and 40 FPS at 4K, representing a 40.3% reduction. The 4K Medium preset also shows a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS, compared to 57 FPS minimum and 77 FPS maximum at 1080p.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at Ultra settings at any resolution?

A: At 1080p Ultra, the system achieves 48 FPS average, which is playable. At 1440p Ultra, the average drops to 39 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 28 FPS, which is below the typically acceptable threshold for smooth simulation gameplay.

Q: How does the CPU's Cinebench R23 score relate to its performance in this game?

A: The i5-9400 scores 6,629 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 935 in single-core, placing it in the 47th percentile among all CPUs. These scores are within 0.4% of its nearest rivals, indicating that the CPU's performance level is consistent with other mid-range processors from its generation.