Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a notoriously demanding title, and the data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 paired with the Intel Arc B370 paints a clear picture of a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution. The measured frames per second (FPS) across all resolutions and settings presets indicate that this combination struggles to maintain playable frame rates, with the integrated GPU acting as the primary bottleneck. The benchmark results show a consistent pattern where the Arc B370's performance ceiling is reached well before the Core Ultra 5 245's processing capabilities are taxed, leading to a gaming experience that is best suited for the lowest graphical presets.

Resolution Scaling

The most telling aspect of this benchmark data is how the average FPS collapses as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 50 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 on the same Low preset, the average drops to 41 FPS, a decline of 18%. Pushing further to 3840x2160, the average plummets to 30 FPS, marking a 40% reduction from the 1080p baseline. This steep scaling curve is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario; the workload is expanding with the pixel count, and the Arc B370 simply does not have the raw throughput to maintain performance.

The pattern holds across other settings presets as well. On High settings, the drop from 1080p (30 FPS) to 1440p (24 FPS) is 20%, and the further drop to 4K (18 FPS) is another 25% reduction. The Ultra preset shows a nearly identical relative decline, moving from 28 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p and finally 17 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these percentages across all presets reinforces the conclusion that the limiting component is the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, you would expect to see a much smaller performance delta between resolutions, as the processor's workload would remain relatively constant while the GPU's workload escalates.

The data suggests that the Arc B370, which has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 and sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, is overwhelmed by the demands of 4K rendering in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Even the move from 1080p to 1440p incurs a significant performance penalty, indicating that the GPU's fill rate and shading capabilities are quickly saturated. The scaling is not linear, but the trend is unmistakable: this is a component that is operating at its limits even at lower resolutions, and every additional pixel significantly impacts the final frame rate.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded across all tested configurations is 50 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 or the Intel Arc B370 the limiting factor in this game?

A: The benchmark results indicate the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting factor. This is evidenced by the significant FPS drops when increasing resolution, a hallmark of a GPU bottleneck, and the GPU's low benchmark percentile (5th) compared to the CPU's (90th).

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of raw GPU score?

A: The Arc B370's average 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184. This is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, including the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2%), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5%), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7%). It is only 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The data shows it cannot maintain a playable frame rate. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS is 17, which is well below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay.

Q: How much of a performance gain is there from dropping settings from High to Low at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average FPS increases from 30 on High settings to 50 on Low settings. This represents a 66.7% improvement in average frame rate by using the lowest preset.

Q: What is the overall standing of this specific CPU-GPU combination in the benchmark database?

A: The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems and confirming its status as a low-performance pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core, 14-thread desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture. It has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which should provide strong single-threaded performance crucial for simulation games. Its benchmark scores are respectable, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32924 and a single-core score of 4648. The CPU sits in the 90th percentile when compared to all other CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 48995 places it within 1% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Given this strong CPU performance, one might expect it to be a capable partner for gaming. However, the measured FPS data suggests the Core Ultra 5 245 is not the performance limiter in this specific configuration. The consistent and significant FPS drops across increasing resolutions point directly to the GPU. The CPU is likely delivering frames as fast as it can, but the Arc B370 is unable to process and render them quickly enough. This is a classic case of CPU headroom; the processor has more performance to give, but it is being held back by the graphics adapter.

The data implies that in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the Core Ultra 5 245's architecture and clock speeds are more than sufficient to handle the game's complex simulation and draw-call logic. The fact that the FPS scales so predictably with resolution changes confirms that the CPU is not struggling to feed the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would be largely stagnant regardless of resolution. The 14 cores and high boost clock provide ample processing power, but in this pairing, that power is left untapped due to the GPU's limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark results provide a comprehensive look at performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system shows a wide performance range based on settings. On Low, it averages 50 FPS, which is the most playable result in the entire dataset. Medium settings see a drop to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, while Ultra is the lowest at 28 FPS. This shows a 22 FPS difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance ceiling lowers considerably. The Low preset averages 41 FPS, which is still a modest result. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings drop to 24 FPS, and Ultra is just slightly lower at 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 18 FPS. This resolution begins to push the Arc B370 to its limits, and even the lowest settings are approaching the edge of smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160, the system's weaknesses are fully exposed. The Low preset is the only one that manages to reach an average of 30 FPS. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra is the worst performer at 17 FPS. The data here is clear: 4K resolution is not a viable option for this combo, as even the lowest settings result in a barely playable frame rate, and all other presets fall well below that threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall performance of this CPU-GPU pairing is reflected in its rank within the benchmark database. The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.7% of all tested systems, a clear indicator of its low performance tier. This ranking is consistent with the individual component data, which shows a high-performing CPU (90th percentile) paired with a very low-performing GPU (5th percentile).

This ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU's limitations. While the Core Ultra 5 245 is a strong processor, its contribution to gaming performance is capped by the Arc B370. The fact that the combo sits so low in the rankings suggests that most other tested systems, even those with older or less capable CPUs, are able to outperform it in this title simply by having a more powerful discrete or integrated graphics solution. The data implies that the GPU is the sole arbiter of this combo's poor standing, as its benchmark score of 1184 is comparable to GPUs from over a decade ago.

The delta between the CPU and GPU performance is stark. The Core Ultra 5 245's average benchmark score is 48995, while the Arc B370's is a mere 1184. This massive disparity in synthetic benchmark scores translates directly into the gaming performance seen here. The rank of 3428 is a direct consequence of this imbalance, confirming that the system is severely handicapped by its graphics component and is not competitive with the vast majority of other tested configurations.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo are heavily dependent on the user's target resolution. For the best overall experience, the 1920x1080 Low preset is the only configuration that provides an average FPS at or near 50, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable experience. While this means sacrificing visual fidelity, the alternative presets at this resolution all fall below 40 FPS, making them less fluid and more prone to noticeable stuttering.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only viable option, averaging 41 FPS. The Medium preset dips to 32 FPS, which may be acceptable for some users, but the Low setting offers a more consistent and responsive experience. However, given the significant visual downgrade required to achieve playable frame rates, users with 1440p monitors would likely find the experience compromised. The data suggests that 1440p is the effective ceiling for this hardware, and even then, only with the lowest settings.

For 4K resolution, the data strongly advises against it. Even the Low preset at 3840x2160 only averages 30 FPS, which is on the borderline of playability for a slow-paced simulation. All other presets, including Medium, High, and Ultra, produce average frame rates between 17 and 23 FPS, which are too low for a smooth experience. The recommendation is to avoid 4K entirely, as the performance penalty is too severe, and the visual benefits are outweighed by the poor frame rate. The most balanced experience is clearly at 1080p Low, where the system can provide a stable and responsive frame rate.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and part of the Panther Lake chip. Its specifications are modest, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Critically, its memory is "System Shared", meaning it relies on the system's main DDR5 memory, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent". This is a fundamental limitation for a demanding game like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU's benchmark results confirm its low position in the performance hierarchy. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy parts, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and the ATI Radeon HD 5770, with scores within 1% of the Arc B370. This indicates that the Arc B370's performance is on par with graphics hardware from over a decade ago, which is far too weak for modern, high-fidelity simulations.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is the definitive bottleneck. The data shows that the system's performance scales directly with resolution, which is the primary function of the GPU. The low pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are simply not enough to handle the game's highly detailed terrain and aircraft models at higher resolutions. The reliance on shared system memory further compounds the issue, as the bandwidth is not dedicated and can introduce latency. The 25W TDP and IGP form factor indicate that this is a power-efficient solution for basic computing, not for gaming, and the benchmark results in this title are evidence of that.