Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs the Intel Core i7-14700F with the Intel Arc B390, and the measured frame rates reveal a configuration that is severely constrained by the graphics subsystem. Across all resolutions and settings, the data indicates that the Arc B390 is the definitive bottleneck, with the 20-core CPU showing no signs of limiting performance. The benchmark results place this combo in the 3302nd position out of 3714 tested combinations, putting it in the bottom 11% of all systems tested for this title—a ranking that reflects the GPU's lowly 9th percentile standing among all graphics cards. The Intel Core i7-14700F, by contrast, sits in the 91st percentile among all CPUs, creating a stark imbalance where the processor's substantial headroom is left largely untapped.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K tells a clear story of GPU saturation. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 56 FPS, which drops to 45 FPS at 1440p and further to 33 FPS at 4K. This represents a 41% performance loss from 1080p to 4K at Low settings, a scaling pattern that points directly at the graphics card being overwhelmed by pixel count. The GPU's 3 nm process node and 80 W TDP suggest a power-efficient design, but the 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are simply insufficient for the demands of a 4K flight simulator.

The scaling becomes even more pronounced at higher quality presets. With High settings, the system delivers 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K—a 42% drop from 1080p to 4K. The Medium preset shows similar behavior: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K, representing a 40% reduction between the two extremes. These consistent drops of roughly 40% across different quality levels suggest that the limiting factor is resolution-independent in its impact—the GPU is equally taxed by the additional pixels regardless of how much graphical work each pixel requires.

At Ultra settings, the system bottoms out dramatically. The 4K Ultra result of 19 FPS matches the 4K High result exactly, indicating that the graphics card has reached a hard performance ceiling. Whether the game is rendering High or Ultra details at 4K, the Arc B390 cannot exceed 19 frames per second. This plateau effect is a classic sign of complete GPU exhaustion, where the render pipeline is fully saturated and additional quality settings make no measurable difference to throughput. The 1080p to 4K scaling at Ultra is 39%, nearly identical to the other presets, reinforcing that the bottleneck remains constant across the entire quality spectrum.

Interestingly, the CPU's role in these scaling patterns appears negligible. The Core i7-14700F, with its boost clock of 5.40 GHz and 33 MB of shared L3 cache, provides ample single-threaded and multi-threaded performance for simulation workloads. Flight simulators are notoriously CPU-intensive, yet the data shows no evidence of CPU limitation—the FPS drops are purely a function of resolution, which is the signature of a GPU-bound scenario. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would typically have the best chance to become a limiting factor, the system only manages 56 FPS, a figure that a 91st percentile CPU should easily exceed if the graphics card were not holding it back.

FAQ

Q: Why does the system perform so poorly in Microsoft Flight Simulator despite having a high-end CPU?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs and delivers a multi-core score of 35122 in Cinebench R23, but the Intel Arc B390 ranks in only the 9th percentile of GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482. The massive gap between the processor's capability and the graphics card's output means the GPU is the overwhelming bottleneck in every measured scenario.

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this configuration?

A: The data shows that 1080p is the only viable resolution for reasonably smooth gameplay. At Low settings, 1080p delivers 56 FPS, while 1440p drops to 45 FPS and 4K falls to 33 FPS. The 4K results at High and Ultra presets both bottom out at 19 FPS, which is below the threshold for acceptable playability.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the GeForce GT 710 (1443). These rivals are all entry-level GPUs from previous generations, confirming the B390's position at the very bottom of modern graphics performance.

Q: Does the CPU's 20-core configuration help in this game?

A: No measurable benefit is evident. The Core i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads, but the FPS numbers show no sign of CPU limitation. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would be most likely to constrain performance, the system delivers only 56 FPS—a figure consistent with GPU-bound behavior. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 41317 and single-thread score of 4257 suggest it could push far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable graphics card.

Q: What memory configuration does this system use?

A: The GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning its VRAM size, type, and bus width are all dependent on the host system's RAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," and the clock speed for the memory is also "System Shared." The CPU supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, but the specific memory setup is not detailed in the measured data.

Q: How does the Core i7-14700F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 53620, which is 0.2% below the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701), 0.3% above the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469), 0.6% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288), and 0.8% above the AMD EPYC 7313P (53206). This places the i7-14700F in a tight cluster of high-performance processors.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this configuration is achieved at 1080p with Low settings. This preset delivers an average of 56 FPS, which is the only measured configuration that approaches smooth, playable frame rates. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 13 FPS (from 56 to 43), and the jump from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS (from 43 to 33). At 1080p Ultra, the system delivers 31 FPS, which is a 45% reduction from the Low preset's performance.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, 1440p Medium at 35 FPS represents a reasonable compromise, though it falls below the 60 FPS target that most flight sim enthusiasts prefer. The 1440p Low preset at 45 FPS is the second-best playable option, offering a 29% improvement over 1440p Medium. At 4K, all presets deliver sub-35 FPS performance, with Low at 33 FPS being the only remotely playable option—and even that is marginal for a game that benefits from steady frame timing.

The data suggests that the best experience per the measured rows is clearly 1080p Low, as it provides the highest average FPS and the most headroom for complex flight scenarios. The 1080p Medium preset at 43 FPS is acceptable for less demanding situations, but the 37 FPS minimum (as opposed to the Low preset's unlisted minimum) suggests potential stutter in dense urban areas or heavy weather. Given that the Ultra preset at 1080p only delivers 31 FPS—a mere 12% improvement over the Medium preset's 43 FPS in terms of quality settings—the Low or Medium presets are the sensible choices. The system simply does not have the GPU throughput to justify High or Ultra settings at any resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the system's performance ranges from 56 FPS at Low to 31 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset delivers 43 FPS average with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS, providing the only measured frame time variance in the dataset. High settings produce 33 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS—a surprisingly small gap of just 2 FPS between the two highest presets. This compression of performance at the top end indicates that the GPU is already operating at its throughput ceiling, and additional graphical features have minimal impact on the final frame rate.

Moving to 1440p, the performance drops across all presets. Low settings deliver 45 FPS, Medium delivers 35 FPS (with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40), High delivers 26 FPS, and Ultra delivers 25 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra narrows further to just 1 FPS, reinforcing the notion that the GPU's render pipeline is completely saturated. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low is a 20% reduction (56 to 45 FPS), while at Medium it is a 19% reduction (43 to 35 FPS), and at High it is a 21% reduction (33 to 26 FPS). These consistent reductions confirm that resolution is the primary driver of performance loss.

At 4K, the performance collapses further. Low settings produce 33 FPS, Medium produces 26 FPS (with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30), and both High and Ultra produce 19 FPS. The fact that High and Ultra are identical at 4K is a critical finding—it demonstrates that the GPU has reached a hard architectural limit. The 4K Medium result of 26 FPS is 21% higher than the 4K High result of 19 FPS, but even this difference is modest. The scaling from 1440p to 4K at Low is a 27% reduction (45 to 33 FPS), while at Medium it is a 26% reduction (35 to 26 FPS), and at High it is a 27% reduction (26 to 19 FPS). The consistency of these percentages across resolutions and presets points to a single, unchanging bottleneck: the Arc B390's limited pixel throughput.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 places the GPU in the 9th percentile of all graphics cards, and the measured FPS data aligns perfectly with this low standing. The GPU's 24 ROPs and 48 TMUs provide a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s, which are modest figures for a 2026-era product. The 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support are present, but the raw compute resources (7.680 TFLOPS FP32) are insufficient for a simulation game that demands consistent rendering of dense geometry and complex shaders.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the dominant factor in this system's performance profile, and the numbers paint a clear picture of its limitations. With a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, the GPU has a theoretical maximum throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. This is a modest figure for a graphics card, and it directly translates to the low frame rates observed in Flight Simulator. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places the B390 in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GeForce GT 625 OEM, and GeForce GT 710.

The memory configuration is notably unusual: the GPU uses System Shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM of its own. The memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," and the bandwidth is "System Dependent." This architecture means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which is a significant disadvantage for a game like Flight Simulator that streams large amounts of terrain and scenery data. The 80 W TDP and IGP slot width suggest this is designed for integrated or low-power applications, not high-end gaming.

The GPU's 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs are the physical resources that must process every frame. The pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are the theoretical ceilings for fill-rate operations, and the measured performance suggests these limits are being hit regularly. The fact that 4K High and 4K Ultra both produce exactly 19 FPS indicates that the GPU's render output units are completely saturated at that resolution, regardless of the quality preset. The 12 RT cores are present for ray-traced effects, but given the overall performance levels, enabling such features would likely push frame rates into single digits.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a high-performance processor that is almost entirely wasted in this configuration. With 20 cores and 28 threads, the CPU has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, providing substantial compute headroom. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35122 and single-core score of 4958 place it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 53620. The nearest rivals—the Intel Xeon 6505P (0.2% higher), Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (0.3% lower), AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (0.6% lower), and AMD EPYC 7313P (0.8% lower)—are all server or high-end desktop parts, confirming the i7-14700F's strong performance class.

The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache, which provides ample fast storage for simulation data. The 10 nm process node and 65 W TDP make it an efficient part, and its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration offers flexibility. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes (CPU only) provides high-bandwidth connectivity, though the Arc B390's System Shared memory architecture may not fully utilize this bandwidth.

In Flight Simulator specifically, the CPU's role is to handle the complex flight dynamics, weather simulation, and scenery loading logic. The PassMark physics score of 2455 and integer math score of 155808 indicate strong compute capability, but the measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the system produces 56 FPS, which is a modest result for a CPU that scores 41317 in PassMark multithread tests. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU, as evidenced by the fact that increasing resolution consistently reduces FPS while the CPU's workload remains relatively constant. A more capable graphics card would allow the i7-14700F to demonstrate its full potential, but with the Arc B390, the processor's 91st percentile standing is irrelevant to the final frame rates.