Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. Its base clock sits at 3.30 GHz with a boost clock reaching 4.90 GHz, and it draws 65 W TDP. The chip features 20 MB of shared L3 cache, with 3 MB of L2 per core and 192 KB of L1 per core. This CPU was released on 2025-01-06, making it a relatively recent addition to the Core Ultra Series 2 lineup.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Core Ultra 5 225 posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and a single-core score of 3655. Its PassMark multi-thread score reaches 30459, with a single-thread score of 4412. The CPU's overall percentile versus all CPUs stands at 85, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database. Its average benchmark score is 36938.

Examining the nearest rivals reveals an interesting competitive landscape. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945, essentially identical (deltaPct of 0). The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 is 0.4% ahead, and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 leads by 0.5%. These are remarkably tight margins — the Core Ultra 5 225 sits within half a percent of all four nearest rivals, suggesting the CPU's raw compute capability is well-matched against a broad range of competing designs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial. The game is known for heavy simulation workloads — physics, flight dynamics, weather systems, and AI traffic all tax the processor heavily. The 10-core, 10-thread configuration provides a solid foundation for these tasks, though the lack of hyperthreading means the CPU handles exactly 10 concurrent threads. The single-core performance (Cinebench R23 score of 3655) matters particularly for the main game thread, which often limits frame rates in flight simulators.

The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low settings, the combo achieves 56 FPS average. At 1080p Ultra, this drops to 31 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at the same resolution is 25 FPS, which is a substantial gap. This indicates that while the CPU provides a capable baseline, the game's simulation logic combined with the GPU's limitations creates a bottleneck at higher settings. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking suggests it is not the primary constraint in most scenarios, but the game's reliance on single-threaded performance means the 4.90 GHz boost clock is critical.

# How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations, which is a significant finding given the CPU's respectable 85th percentile ranking. The disparity between CPU performance and combo ranking highlights the GPU's influence on overall results.

The combo rank of 2665 suggests that most other processor-and-graphics-card pairings deliver better frame rates in this specific title. This is not surprising when examining the GPU's capabilities — the Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1482. That score places the GPU at the 9th percentile versus all GPUs, indicating it is one of the weakest graphics solutions in the database.

The nearest GPU rivals paint a stark picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 (1.3% lower), the GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% lower), the GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% lower), and the GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% lower). These are all entry-level, legacy or low-power GPUs. The Arc B390 outperforms them, but only marginally. This places the combo in a performance tier where playable frame rates in a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator are difficult to achieve at higher settings.

The data indicates that the combo's 2665 rank is primarily a GPU-driven outcome. The CPU's strong synthetic scores do not translate into competitive gaming performance because the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering demands. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 56 FPS, which is playable. However, at 1080p Ultra, the average drops to 31 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 19 FPS. These results are consistent with a system where the GPU is the limiting factor, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this CPU-GPU pairing?

A: The data shows the highest average FPS at 1080p Low settings, achieving 56 FPS. At 1440p Low, the average drops to 45 FPS, and at 4K Low, it is 33 FPS. For a smoother experience, 1080p Low is the only tested configuration that exceeds 50 FPS.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 225 compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 (-0.2%), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 (-0.4%), and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 (-0.5%). All five CPUs are within 0.5% of each other.

Q: Does this combo perform better at 1080p or 4K?

A: The combo performs significantly better at 1080p. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 56, while at 4K Low, it is 33. At 1080p Ultra, the average is 31 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it is 19 FPS. The frame rate drops by approximately 41% from 1080p Low to 4K Low.

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking and what does it imply?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has a percentile rank of 9 versus all GPUs, meaning it performs better than only 9% of graphics cards in the database. Its average benchmark score is 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This low ranking explains why the combo sits at 2665 out of 2996 in this game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. The frame rates scale predictably with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of a GPU-limited system. At 1080p Low, the CPU can push 56 FPS, but the GPU cannot maintain that at higher settings.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values recorded?

A: The only settings with min and max FPS data are Medium. At 1080p Medium, the min is 37 FPS and the max is 50 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the min is 30 FPS and the max is 40 FPS. At 4K Medium, the min is 22 FPS and the max is 30 FPS.

# Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of how this combo performs across three resolutions and four settings presets. Every configuration was tested, yielding 12 distinct data points.

At 1080p, the lowest settings preset delivers an average of 56 FPS. Medium settings reduce this to 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. High settings average 33 FPS, and Ultra settings average 31 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra shows a 25 FPS drop, or approximately 45% reduction in average frame rate.

Moving to 1440p, the pattern continues but with lower absolute numbers. Low settings average 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS (min 30, max 40), High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 20 FPS, a 44% reduction.

At 4K, the results become marginal for most settings. Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS (min 22, max 30), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. Notably, High and Ultra produce identical average frame rates at 4K, suggesting that the GPU is completely saturated at this resolution regardless of the preset.

The data reveals several important patterns. First, the gap between Low and Medium is substantial at every resolution — 13 FPS at 1080p, 10 FPS at 1440p, and 7 FPS at 4K. The gap between High and Ultra is much smaller — 2 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 0 FPS at 4K. This suggests that Ultra settings impose minimal additional cost over High, likely because the GPU is already at its limit.

Second, the minimum FPS values at Medium settings show that frame pacing is relatively stable. At 1080p, the min is 37 FPS versus an average of 43, a 14% drop from average to minimum. At 1440p, the min is 30 versus an average of 35, also a 14% drop. At 4K, the min is 22 versus an average of 26, a 15% drop. These consistent ratios indicate that the GPU's performance is predictable without sudden stutters.

# GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units. The GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores, though no tensor cores are specified. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2500 MHz.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the host system's DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bus width and bandwidth are listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. This architecture has significant implications for gaming performance — the GPU must contend with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which can limit performance in memory-intensive scenarios.

The Arc B390's compute capabilities are modest. It delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s. The GPU draws 80 W TDP and has no dedicated power connectors, consistent with its IGP form factor.

In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, the Arc B390 scores 1482. This places it at the 9th percentile versus all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-end NVIDIA parts — the GT 520MX (1463), GeForce 800M (1460), GT 625 OEM (1446), and GT 710 (1443). The Arc B390 leads these by 1.3% to 2.7%, but this is a weak competitive position.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is clearly the limiting factor. The game is visually demanding, with complex terrain, dynamic lighting, and detailed aircraft models. The Arc B390's shared memory architecture and low shader count struggle to maintain playable frame rates at higher settings. The measured data confirms this — at 4K Ultra, the combo averages just 19 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. Even at 1080p Low, the 56 FPS average is modest, and any increase in graphical fidelity quickly reduces performance.

# Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the user's resolution and tolerance for frame rate fluctuations. At 1080p, the Low preset provides the best experience with an average of 56 FPS. This is the only tested configuration that achieves a frame rate above 50 FPS, making it the most playable option. Medium at 1080p averages 43 FPS, which is acceptable for a simulation game but may feel less smooth. High and Ultra at 1080p average 33 FPS and 31 FPS respectively, which are borderline for a game that benefits from smooth visuals.

At 1440p, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. Medium averages 35 FPS, and both High and Ultra fall to 26 and 25 FPS respectively. For users prioritizing visual quality over frame rate, Medium at 1440p offers a reasonable balance. However, the data suggests that High and Ultra at 1440p provide diminishing returns — the 1 FPS difference between them indicates the GPU is saturated.

At 4K, none of the tested presets deliver a consistently smooth experience. Low averages 33 FPS, Medium 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra average 19 FPS. For most users, 4K is not viable with this combo, as even Low settings fall below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for playable flight simulation. If 4K is necessary, Low settings are the only option, but users should expect frame rates in the low 30s.

The data suggests that Medium settings at 1080p is the sweet spot for users who want a balance between visual quality and performance. The 43 FPS average with a 37 FPS minimum ensures relatively consistent frame delivery. For users who prioritize frame rate above all else, 1080p Low at 56 FPS is the clear choice. The step from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 10 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS — the latter is the most efficient upgrade in terms of performance cost.

# Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling behavior reveals critical insights into the system's bottleneck. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average FPS drops from 56 to 45, a 19.6% reduction. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, the average drops from 45 to 33, a 26.7% reduction. The total drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 41%, which is less than the pixel count increase (1080p has approximately 2.07 million pixels, while 4K has approximately 8.29 million — a 4x increase). This non-linear scaling strongly indicates a CPU bottleneck at lower resolutions.

At Low settings, the GPU has less work to do per pixel, so the CPU's simulation and game logic become the limiting factor. This is why the frame rate does not drop proportionally with pixel count. The CPU can only feed the GPU so many frames per second, regardless of resolution.

At Ultra settings, the scaling is different. From 1080p Ultra to 1440p Ultra, the average drops from 31 to 25, a 19.4% reduction. From 1440p Ultra to 4K Ultra, the average drops from 25 to 19, a 24% reduction. The total drop from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is 38.7%. This is slightly less than the Low settings drop, suggesting that at Ultra settings, the GPU becomes more of a limiting factor, but the CPU still plays a significant role.

The Medium settings data provides additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the average is 43 FPS. At 1440p Medium, it is 35 FPS (18.6% drop). At 4K Medium, it is 26 FPS (25.7% drop from 1440p). The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium is 39.5%. The minimum FPS values at Medium settings — 37 at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and 22 at 4K — show a similar scaling pattern.

The data implies that this combo is balanced in an unusual way. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking suggests it can drive frame rates well above what the GPU can render. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking means it is the primary constraint at higher resolutions and settings. However, at 1080p Low, the CPU's limitations start to appear — the 56 FPS average is likely close to the maximum the CPU can produce in this game's simulation-heavy workload. Users upgrading the GPU would likely see significant gains at 1080p, but the CPU would eventually become the bottleneck at very high frame rates.