Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 5 245 + Intel Arc B390

This combination of Intel's Core Ultra 5 245 processor paired with the integrated Arc B390 graphics delivers playable but modest frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing a system that is firmly GPU-limited across every resolution and settings tier. The combo ranks 3302nd out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 11% of all systems, yet the measured results reveal a surprisingly consistent scaling pattern that suggests the CPU has ample headroom while the integrated graphics struggle to keep pace with the simulator's demands.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and predictable resolution scaling pattern, with average frame rates dropping by roughly 40-44% when moving from 1080p to 4K at each settings level. At Low settings, the system produces 56 FPS at 1920x1080, which falls to 45 FPS at 2560x1440 (a 19.6% reduction) and then to 33 FPS at 3840x2160 (a 26.7% reduction from 1440p). This means the total drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 23 FPS, representing a 41% performance loss. The Medium preset shows similar behavior: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K — a full 39.5% decline from the lowest to highest resolution. High settings follow the same trajectory: 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K, a 42.4% reduction. Ultra settings mirror High almost exactly, with 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K.

The consistency of these scaling ratios — all falling between roughly 39% and 42% total degradation from 1080p to 4K — strongly indicates that the integrated Arc B390 is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see diminishing FPS penalties at higher resolutions as the workload shifts more heavily toward the GPU; instead, the proportional drops remain remarkably stable across all four settings presets. The 4K results cluster tightly between 19 and 33 FPS depending on settings, with High and Ultra both bottoming out at exactly 19 FPS — a sign that the GPU is saturated at this resolution regardless of graphical complexity. At 1080p, the spread between Low (56 FPS) and Ultra (31 FPS) is 25 FPS, whereas at 4K the spread narrows to just 14 FPS (33 to 19), further confirming that pixel throughput, not scene complexity, is the dominant constraint.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 brings 14 cores and 14 threads to this combination, running at a base clock of 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This Arrow Lake-S processor, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs according to aggregate benchmark data, with an average benchmark score of 48995. Its nearest rivals in overall CPU performance include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (scoring 49196, a 0.4% difference), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, 0.5% ahead), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6% behind), and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8% behind) — all of which cluster within a 1.3% band, indicating the 245 is competitively positioned in the broader CPU landscape.

However, the game data tells a different story about this specific pairing. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provide a solid foundation for flight simulation workloads, which typically involve streaming large terrain datasets. Yet the benchmark results show that even at 1080p Low — the least GPU-intensive configuration tested — the system only reaches 56 FPS, a figure that leaves substantial performance on the table given the CPU's capabilities. Cinebench R23 scores of 32924 multi-core and 4648 single-core, along with a PassMark single-thread score of 4394, suggest this processor should handle the simulator's AI traffic, physics, and scenery streaming without breaking a sweat. The fact that frame rates drop so precipitously when moving to higher resolutions indicates the CPU is rarely, if ever, the bottleneck in this pairing.

The 14-thread configuration (no hyperthreading) means the CPU presents a relatively straightforward thread layout to the game engine. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to scale across multiple cores, and the 245's 14 physical cores provide ample parallelism. The data shows that at 4K Ultra, the system produces 19 FPS — identical to 4K High — which would be unusual if the CPU were contributing to the frame time budget at higher settings. This plateau strongly suggests the GPU is completely saturated and the CPU is idle-waiting for render work to complete.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's own 3 nm process under the Panther Lake chip family. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, featuring 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The memory configuration is entirely system-dependent, using shared system memory with bandwidth that varies based on the host platform — in this case, the dual-channel DDR5 setup of the Core Ultra 5 245. The GPU's raw compute capabilities include 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 (via 2:1 ratio), with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with modern game APIs.

The benchmark data paints a sobering picture of this GPU's standing. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are decidedly entry-level discrete parts: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443, 2.7% behind). This is a GPU that competes with decade-old entry-level mobile and OEM parts, not modern gaming hardware. The 12 ray tracing cores are present on paper, but with this level of raw throughput, enabling any form of ray-traced effects would be impractical at playable frame rates.

The VRAM situation is particularly relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is notorious for consuming large amounts of video memory due to its high-resolution terrain textures and detailed aircraft models. With system-shared memory and system-dependent bandwidth, the Arc B390 cannot dedicate a fixed pool of high-speed VRAM to the game. This likely contributes to the narrow FPS spread between settings presets at each resolution — the GPU's memory subsystem becomes a constraint that no amount of graphical detail reduction can fully alleviate. The 80 W TDP for the entire GPU, combined with its IGP form factor and no power connectors, reinforces that this is designed for basic graphical output, not demanding flight simulation workloads.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Arc B390 ranks 3302nd out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all systems tested. This ranking is particularly striking given that the CPU alone sits in the 90th percentile of all processors — a clear demonstration that the integrated GPU is dragging the overall system performance down dramatically. The delta between the CPU's strong standalone position and the combo's weak in-game ranking underscores the extent to which the Arc B390 becomes the binding constraint.

The data suggests that this combo performs roughly in line with what the GPU's 9th percentile standing would predict, rather than benefiting from the CPU's strength. If the system were CPU-limited, we would expect the combo ranking to be substantially higher, closer to the CPU's percentile position. Instead, the GPU's low-end positioning dominates the pairing's outcome. The rank also indicates that 412 other tested combinations perform worse than this setup, meaning there is a meaningful tail of even less capable systems, but the vast majority of tested hardware delivers superior frame rates in this simulator. For context, the GPU's nearest rivals — all scoring within 2.7% of the Arc B390 in synthetic benchmarks — would likely produce similar in-game results, confirming that this combo's ranking is a reflection of the integrated graphics tier rather than any specific architectural advantage or deficiency.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its most playable results across all settings. Low settings produce an average of 56 FPS, which is the only configuration that clears the 60 FPS threshold commonly associated with smooth gameplay. Medium settings yield 43 FPS average, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings drop to 33 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 31 FPS average. The jump from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS, and the final step from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS — suggesting diminishing returns at the top end of the settings spectrum.

Moving to 2560x1440, all settings see roughly 23-26% reductions from their 1080p counterparts. Low settings average 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS (with a range of 30-40 FPS), High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The delta between High and Ultra narrows to just 1 FPS at this resolution, reinforcing the pattern that the GPU's pixel throughput ceiling is being approached. At 3840x2160, the system bottoms out: Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS (with a range of 22-30 FPS), and both High and Ultra average exactly 19 FPS. The collapse of the High-to-Ultra distinction at 4K — where both produce identical averages — is a definitive sign of complete GPU saturation.

Across all measured configurations, the highest average FPS recorded is 56 (1080p Low) and the lowest is 19 (4K High and 4K Ultra). The Medium preset consistently provides the only configurations with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, suggesting this is the most stable settings tier across resolutions: 37-50 FPS at 1080p, 30-40 FPS at 1440p, and 22-30 FPS at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the Low preset at 1080p is the only configuration that approaches consistently smooth gameplay, with an average of 56 FPS. This should be the default recommendation for any user prioritizing playability over visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a more balanced experience at 43 FPS average, with the recorded 37-50 FPS range indicating acceptable frame pacing for a flight simulator, where the pace of gameplay is generally slower than fast-action titles.

For users who must play at 1440p, Low settings (45 FPS) are the clear choice, as Medium drops to 35 FPS and High falls to 26 FPS — the latter being marginal for a game that requires precise control inputs. At 4K, no settings preset achieves a comfortable frame rate; Low at 33 FPS is the best available option, but even this will exhibit noticeable stutter during complex scenery rendering. The data shows that Ultra settings provide virtually no benefit over High at any resolution (1-2 FPS difference), so users should never select Ultra with this hardware — the visual gains are not worth the frame rate sacrifice. Similarly, the step from Medium to High costs 10 FPS at 1080p and 9 FPS at both 1440p and 4K, which is a substantial penalty for what is typically a modest visual upgrade in this simulator.

The 4K High and Ultra results being identical at 19 FPS suggests that the GPU is rendering at its absolute maximum capability regardless of settings at that resolution, making any settings adjustment above Low at 4K futile. The practical recommendation is: 1080p Medium for the best balance of visuals and performance, 1080p Low for maximum smoothness, and 1440p Low for users with higher-resolution displays who can tolerate reduced detail. 4K should be avoided entirely with this combo.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The highest measured average FPS is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No configuration in the tested data reaches 60 FPS average.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this hardware?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 provides 43 FPS average with a range of 37-50 FPS, making it the most balanced option. Low settings at 1080p achieve 56 FPS for maximum smoothness.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 4K?

A: They are identical. Both Ultra and High at 3840x2160 produce an average of 19 FPS, indicating the GPU is fully saturated at this resolution.

Q: Is this system CPU-limited or GPU-limited?

A: The data strongly indicates GPU limitation. The CPU ranks in the 90th percentile of all processors, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. The proportional FPS drops across resolutions and the identical High/Ultra results at 4K confirm the GPU is the bottleneck.

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at Low settings?

A: The system delivers 56 FPS at 1080p Low and 33 FPS at 4K Low, a difference of 23 FPS or approximately 41% lower performance at 4K.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 3302nd out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 11% of all systems tested for this game.