Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents one of the most demanding workloads in the benchmark database, and the combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K with the Intel Arc B390 produces a distinctive performance profile. The data indicates a system that is heavily constrained by the graphics processor across all tested resolutions and settings, resulting in a functional but limited experience for this flight simulation title.

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

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a 24-core, 32-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process node. It features a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 6.00 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The processor includes a substantial cache hierarchy: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This hardware profile places the CPU in the 95th percentile against all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79097.

The processor’s synthetic benchmark results are strong across the board. In Cinebench R23, it scores 39399.5 in multi-core and 2262.5 in single-core tests. Geekbench results show 21697 in multi-core and 2655 in single-core. PassMark tests reveal a multithread score of 58674 and a single-thread score of 4697. These numbers indicate a processor with exceptional headroom for simulation-heavy tasks like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies on complex physics and AI calculations.

However, the measured FPS data tells a different story. The CPU’s capabilities are not the limiting factor in this combination. The processor’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF with an average score of 79371 (delta -0.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus at 79574 (delta -0.6%), and the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80041 (delta -1.2%). The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 trails at 77740 (delta 1.7%). These close margins confirm that the i9-14900K is operating at the top tier of CPU performance, yet the game’s frame rates do not reflect this capability. The data suggests that in this specific configuration, the CPU is waiting on GPU output, a conclusion supported by the consistently low FPS across all settings. In synthetic single-threaded performance, the i9-14900K’s 2262.5 Cinebench R23 score and 4697 PassMark single-thread score suggest ample processing power for the game’s main thread, but this power remains underutilized due to the GPU bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the Intel Core i9-14900K and Intel Arc B390 achieves a rank of 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 11% of all systems tested, a surprising outcome given the CPU’s top-tier status. The rank reflects the integrated nature of the GPU, which significantly drags down the overall performance potential of the system.

The Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) using the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its peak pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS. This hardware is positioned at the 9th percentile against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

The rank of 2665 is consistent with the GPU’s low percentile standing. The data shows that the i9-14900K’s computing strength cannot compensate for the Arc B390’s graphical limitations in this game. The combo rank is a direct result of the GPU bottleneck, and it highlights a significant mismatch between the two components. When compared to other combos in the database, this pairing sits near the bottom, indicating that users would need to rely on lower resolutions and settings to achieve playable frame rates. The CPU’s high percentile (95th) versus the GPU’s low percentile (9th) creates a 86-point gap that defines this system’s performance profile.

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

Resolution scaling in Microsoft Flight Simulator reveals a clear pattern of GPU limitation. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 56 FPS, which drops to 45 FPS at 1440p and 33 FPS at 4K. This represents a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The Medium settings show a similar trend: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K, a 40% drop. High settings produce 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, a 42% decrease.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all settings, with 4K performance roughly 60% of 1080p performance. This is a classic symptom of a GPU-limited system. The i9-14900K has more than enough processing power to handle the increased resolution workload, but the Arc B390’s limited shading units and memory bandwidth (system shared) cannot keep pace. The data shows that as resolution increases, the GPU’s workload expands, and the system’s frame rates fall proportionally.

At 1080p Low, the 56 FPS result suggests the GPU is barely able to maintain a playable frame rate at the lowest settings. The drop to 33 FPS at 4K Low indicates that even the most forgiving settings cannot overcome the GPU’s limitations at higher resolutions. The measured data does not include minimum FPS for most settings, but the Medium preset provides min/max values: 37-50 FPS at 1080p, 30-40 FPS at 1440p, and 22-30 FPS at 4K. These ranges confirm that frame pacing becomes less stable as resolution increases, further evidence of GPU strain.

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

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets.

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 37 and 50 FPS. High settings average 33 FPS. Ultra settings average 31 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 25 FPS, representing a 45% performance penalty for the highest visual quality.

At 2560x1440, performance drops across the board. Low settings average 45 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a range of 30 to 40 FPS. High settings average 26 FPS. Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows to 20 FPS, but the overall frame rates are lower, with Ultra falling below 30 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates. Low settings average 33 FPS. Medium settings average 26 FPS, with a range of 22 to 30 FPS. High settings average 19 FPS. Ultra settings also average 19 FPS. At this resolution, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck, with all settings except Low falling below 30 FPS.

The data shows a consistent hierarchy: Low settings provide the highest frame rates at every resolution, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra. The performance gap between Low and Medium is significant (13 FPS at 1080p, 10 FPS at 1440p, 7 FPS at 4K), while the gap between High and Ultra is minimal (2 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, 0 FPS at 4K). This suggests that the Ultra preset offers little benefit over High in this configuration.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution with no dedicated VRAM; it uses system shared memory, with a memory clock described as "System Shared" and bandwidth as "System Dependent". The GPU’s base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2500 MHz. It has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores. The FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are modest figures for a modern game like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU’s benchmark performance is exceptionally low, ranking in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it near the bottom of the database. The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463 (delta 1.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1460 (delta 1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (delta 2.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (delta 2.7%). These are all legacy or entry-level mobile GPUs, underscoring the Arc B390’s limited graphical capabilities.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s role is decisive. The system’s frame rates are directly tied to the Arc B390’s ability to render the game’s complex scenery and weather effects. The 19 FPS average at 4K High and Ultra settings indicates that the GPU cannot handle the pixel shader workload at higher resolutions. The 56 FPS at 1080p Low is the only result approaching a smooth experience, and it still falls short of the 60 FPS target. The GPU’s system shared memory architecture means it competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, further constraining performance in a game that benefits from fast data access.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the recommended settings depend heavily on resolution. At 1920x1080, the Low preset offers the best experience with 56 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a playable frame rate. Medium at 43 FPS is acceptable for users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, with the 37 FPS minimum still above the 30 FPS threshold. High and Ultra at 33 and 31 FPS respectively are borderline, with dips below 30 FPS likely during complex scenes.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 45 FPS is the most viable option. Medium at 35 FPS is playable but may experience stuttering, as indicated by the 30 FPS minimum. High at 26 FPS and Ultra at 25 FPS are below the playable threshold for a flight simulator, where smooth camera panning is essential. Users at this resolution should stick to Low or Medium.

At 3840x2160, none of the presets deliver a satisfactory experience. Low at 33 FPS is the best option, but it still falls short of the 60 FPS target and may feel sluggish. Medium at 26 FPS, High at 19 FPS, and Ultra at 19 FPS are all below playable levels. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combination, and users should consider lowering the display resolution to 1440p or 1080p.

The data indicates that the Low preset provides the most consistent experience across all resolutions, with the largest performance headroom. The Medium preset offers a reasonable compromise at 1080p, but at higher resolutions, the performance penalty is too steep. The High and Ultra presets provide minimal visual benefit for a significant performance cost, making them poor choices for this system.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1920x1080 with Low settings provides 56 FPS, the highest measured frame rate. At 2560x1440, Low settings drop to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160, Low settings yield 33 FPS. The 1080p resolution is the only one where any setting exceeds 50 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Core i9-14900K compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The i9-14900K has an average benchmark score of 79097, placing it 0.3% behind the Intel Core i9-14900KF (79371), 0.6% behind the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus (79574), and 1.2% behind the AMD EPYC 7413 (80041). It is 1.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 (77740).

Q: What settings preset should I use for the best balance of visual quality and performance?

A: At 1920x1080, Medium settings provide 43 FPS, which is playable. At 2560x1440, Low settings at 45 FPS are recommended. At 3840x2160, Low at 33 FPS is the best option, though frame rates are below ideal levels.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B390 capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at Ultra settings?

A: Ultra settings produce average frame rates of 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. These results are below the 30 FPS threshold at resolutions above 1080p, indicating the GPU cannot handle Ultra settings effectively.

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

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443).

Q: What does the FPS drop from 1080p to 4K indicate about the system bottleneck?

A: The performance drops by approximately 41% from 1080p to 4K across all settings, with 1080p Low at 56 FPS and 4K Low at 33 FPS. This consistent scaling pattern indicates the GPU is the limiting component, as the CPU has ample headroom.