Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs a 12-core Intel Core i7-12700KF with the Intel Arc B390, an integrated-class GPU, producing a combination that ranks near the bottom of the tested pool. The combo sits at rank 2665 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 11th percentile of all systems evaluated for this flight simulator. This is a pairing where the processor is clearly the dominant component, while the graphics solution anchors the overall experience to modest frame rates across all settings and resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this configuration at rank 2665 out of 2996 tested combos, which means roughly 89% of all tested system pairings deliver higher average frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This low standing is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, given that the Intel Arc B390 ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The CPU, by contrast, ranks at the 85th percentile among all processors, indicating a massive imbalance between the two components.

Benchmark results show the Arc B390’s average score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in direct competition with legacy mobile GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, 1.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (score 1460, 1.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (score 1446, 2.5% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (score 1443, 2.7% slower). These are all entry-level or decade-old parts, which contextualizes why this combo struggles to reach playable frame rates at higher resolutions.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 35365 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals: the Intel Core i7-13700T (score 35403, 0.1% faster), the Intel Core 5 213PE (score 35428, 0.2% faster), the Intel Core i5-13600T (score 35305, 0.2% slower), and the Intel Core i7-12700K (score 35287, 0.2% slower). This shows the i7-12700KF is performing exactly as expected for its class, with negligible differences from similar processors. The bottleneck is unambiguous: the CPU has ample headroom while the GPU is saturated.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-12700KF brings 12 cores and 20 threads to this pairing, running at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosting to 5.00 GHz. This Alder Lake-S architecture part, built on Intel’s 10 nm process, features a 25 MB shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 cache per core. The processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and its unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, though the GPU constraint makes CPU overclocking largely irrelevant for this game.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates strong multi-threaded capability. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28838 and PassMark multithread score of 34092 indicate substantial parallel processing power. Single-thread performance is also solid, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4071 and a 3DMark single-thread score of 1043. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for simulation logic and draw calls, this processor provides robust capability that is never fully utilized in this configuration.

The 3DMark thread scaling results are telling: scores rise from 1043 (single-thread) to 2065 (2-thread), 4011 (4-thread), 7211 (8-thread), 9282 (16-thread), and peak at 9983 (max threads). This near-linear scaling up to 8 threads shows the architecture handles increasing workloads efficiently. However, in this game at the measured frame rates, the CPU is rarely the limiting factor. The data shows the GPU’s 9th percentile ranking versus the CPU’s 85th percentile ranking, and the measured FPS numbers reflect that imbalance.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process with the Panther Lake chip. It operates at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost clock of 2500 MHz, and its memory is system-shared, meaning the VRAM size, type, and bus width are all dependent on the host system’s RAM configuration. This is a critical limitation for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data.

The GPU’s specifications are modest: 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. The TDP is 80 W, and it’s classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, no discrete dimensions, and display outputs dependent on the portable device.

The single benchmark result for this GPU is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, which places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts from the GT 500M, 800M, and GT 600/700 series, with delta percentages ranging from 1.3% to 2.7%. This positions the Arc B390 as a solution suited for basic desktop tasks or very light gaming, not for demanding flight simulation at high resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates confirm the GPU bottleneck across all settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the combo achieves 56 FPS on Low settings, 43 FPS on Medium, 33 FPS on High, and 31 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS, indicating some variance but generally consistent performance. These numbers are playable but far from smooth for a flight simulator where visual fidelity enhances the experience.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop noticeably. Low settings produce 45 FPS, Medium delivers 35 FPS (with min 30 and max 40), High yields 26 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at higher presets. At this resolution, only Low and Medium presets approach acceptable playability.

At 3840x2160, the performance degrades significantly. Low settings manage 33 FPS, Medium drops to 26 FPS (with min 22 and max 30), while both High and Ultra are locked at 19 FPS. The 4K results show that the GPU is completely overwhelmed, with High and Ultra producing identical averages. The minimum FPS of 22 at Medium 4K indicates occasional stutters that would disrupt the immersive experience of a flight simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a GPU-bound system. At Low settings, the frame rate drops from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p (a 19.6% reduction), then to 33 FPS at 4K (a 41.1% reduction from 1440p, or 41.1% from 1080p). At Medium settings, the progression is 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p (18.6% drop), and 26 FPS at 4K (25.7% drop from 1440p). High settings show 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p (21.2% drop), and 19 FPS at 4K (26.9% drop from 1440p).

The percentage drops between 1440p and 4K are smaller than those between 1080p and 1440p at Medium and High settings, which suggests the GPU is hitting a performance floor. At 4K Ultra, the 19 FPS result matches 4K High exactly, indicating the GPU has no additional headroom to differentiate between these heavy presets. The scaling pattern implies that pixel count is the primary driver of performance loss, but the GPU’s limited shading and texture throughput caps the ceiling regardless of resolution.

For a flight simulator where the camera often surveys vast landscapes, the resolution scaling behavior means users must choose between visual clarity and smoothness. The data shows that the system is consistently GPU-limited, as the CPU’s robust single-thread and multi-thread scores are never the constraining factor. Even at 1080p Low, the 56 FPS result is modest for a processor of this caliber.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured rows, the optimal balance between visual quality and frame rate occurs at 1080p Medium, which delivers 43 FPS average with a minimum of 37 FPS. This preset provides a smooth enough experience for most flight scenarios while retaining moderate visual details. The 1080p Low preset at 56 FPS is the smoothest option but sacrifices significant visual fidelity, which may be acceptable for competitive or performance-focused users.

At 1440p, the Medium preset at 35 FPS is borderline playable, but the 30 FPS minimum could cause noticeable stutters during complex scenes. The Low preset at 45 FPS is the safer choice for 1440p if smoothness is prioritized. At 4K, all presets fall below 35 FPS, with Low at 33 FPS being the only option approaching playability, though the experience would still be suboptimal.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visuals, 1080p Low is the clear recommendation. For those seeking a balance, 1080p Medium offers the best compromise. The Ultra presets at any resolution provide marginal visual gains over High—only 2 FPS difference at 1080p and 1440p, and identical results at 4K—making them poor choices given the performance cost. The data suggests that High and Ultra settings are effectively equivalent on this hardware, so users should select High if they want the best visuals without the extra performance hit.

FAQ

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This configuration ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 11th percentile of all systems evaluated for this game.

Q: What is the best frame rate achievable with this hardware?

A: The highest measured average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At Medium 1080p, the average drops to 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this system?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Intel Arc B390 ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel Core i7-12700KF ranks at the 85th percentile among all CPUs.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% ahead of the GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M, 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710.

Q: What settings provide the smoothest experience at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 45 FPS, while Medium delivers 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS. Low is recommended for smoother gameplay, though Medium is acceptable if visual quality is preferred.

Q: Are Ultra settings worth the performance cost?

A: No. At 1080p, Ultra yields 31 FPS versus 33 FPS on High, and at 4K both High and Ultra produce identical 19 FPS averages. The visual difference does not justify the performance loss.