Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates across the three resolutions paint a clear picture of a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics solution. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 50 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 41 FPS, a reduction of 9 frames, and at 4K Low it falls to 30 FPS. This scaling pattern indicates that the integrated graphics are the limiting factor, as the CPU is being held back by the GPU's ability to render frames.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution further confirms this bottleneck. At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 22 FPS (50 down to 28). At 1440p, that spread narrows to 18 FPS (41 down to 23). At 4K, the spread is just 13 FPS (30 down to 17). This compression of the performance envelope at higher resolutions is typical of a GPU-bound scenario where the render workload outpaces the available shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

The 4K results are particularly telling. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 17, which is essentially unplayable for a flight simulator that requires smooth camera panning and instrument readability. Even at 4K Low, the 30 FPS average is borderline, and the lack of min/max data for that setting suggests the frame pacing may be inconsistent. The Medium settings at 4K do provide min and max values (20 min, 27 max), which shows a 7 FPS variance, indicating that the system is struggling to maintain consistent frame delivery under load.

When comparing the resolution scaling from 1440p to 4K at Medium settings, the drop is from 32 FPS to 23 FPS, a 9 FPS reduction. This is proportional to the pixel count increase, which is roughly 2.25 times more pixels at 4K versus 1440p. The fact that the FPS does not drop by more than half suggests that the game's engine is not purely fill-rate limited at these settings, but the overall performance remains too low for a satisfactory experience at 4K.

The data strongly suggests that this configuration should be considered a 1080p solution. The 1080p Medium preset delivers 39 FPS average with a 33 FPS minimum and 45 FPS maximum, which provides a playable experience with some headroom. Pushing beyond 1080p, even at Low settings, sacrifices too much frame rate to be practical. The scaling behavior shows that the Intel Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate simply cannot keep up with the demands of higher resolutions in this simulation title.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.5% of all tested system configurations, which puts it in the company of systems that are primarily designed for basic productivity rather than gaming. The ranking reflects the pairing of a high-end 20-core CPU with an integrated graphics solution that sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs.

The Intel Arc B370's benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in extremely low territory. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta). These are all legacy or low-power mobile parts from over a decade ago, which contextualizes the Arc B370's position in the current GPU landscape. The GPU's percentile rank of 5 means that 95% of all GPUs in the benchmark database outperform it.

The combination of a CPU that sits at the 93rd percentile among all processors with a GPU at the 5th percentile creates a massive imbalance. The CPU's average benchmark score of 64640 puts it within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438). This level of CPU performance is well above what is needed for 1080p gaming, but the GPU cannot translate that processing power into frame rate.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the combo rank of 2770 out of 2996 means that over 92% of tested combinations deliver higher average frame rates. This is a significant disadvantage for a flight sim that relies heavily on terrain streaming and photogrammetry data processing. The game's engine is known to be demanding on both CPU and GPU, but in this case, the GPU is the clear performance ceiling.

The rank also suggests that even budget-oriented discrete GPUs would likely outperform this integrated solution. The fact that the GPU's nearest rivals are all from the HD 5000 and HD 7000 series era indicates that any modern discrete graphics card would provide a substantial uplift in this title. The data shows that this combo is best suited for esports titles or older games, not a demanding flight simulator released in 2020.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 brings 20 cores and 20 threads to the system, running at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boosting up to 5.30 GHz. This is a desktop-class processor from the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared, with 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 192 KB of L1 cache per core. This is a substantial amount of compute resources for a game that can leverage multiple cores for terrain and weather simulation.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong multithreaded performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 42216 in multicore and 5960 in single-core. The PassMark multithread score is 49682, with a single-thread score of 4689. The floating point math score of 172776 and integer math score of 134773 indicate robust arithmetic capability, which matters for flight physics calculations and autopilot systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

However, the game's measured FPS does not reflect this CPU power. At 1080p Low, the system produces 50 FPS, which is far below what this CPU could theoretically support if paired with a capable discrete GPU. The CPU's percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs places it in the top tier, yet the GPU's 5th percentile ranking completely dominates the performance outcome. This is a classic case where the processor is effectively idle waiting for the graphics pipeline to complete its work.

The CPU's nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores are all server-class processors: the AMD EPYC 4464P (-0.3% delta), the AMD EPYC 7343 (0.7% delta), and the AMD EPYC 9124 (-0.7% delta). This comparison shows that the Core Ultra 7 265 has compute capability in the same range as enterprise EPYC parts, which are designed for heavy multithreaded workloads. In a flight simulator, this CPU can handle all the AI traffic, weather simulation, and physics calculations without breaking a sweat.

The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s from dual-channel DDR5 support is adequate for feeding the CPU's 20 cores, but the GPU uses system shared memory, which means the CPU and GPU compete for the same memory bandwidth. This contention can further reduce effective performance in memory-intensive scenarios like flight sim terrain streaming. The CPU's 30 MB L3 cache helps mitigate some of this, but the system shared memory architecture of the Arc B370 remains a bottleneck.

In terms of clock behavior, the 5.30 GHz boost clock is well above what most games need for single-threaded performance, and the 2.40 GHz base clock is sufficient for sustained multithreaded loads. The CPU's 65 W TDP is modest for a 20-core part, which indicates efficient power management. This efficiency is wasted in this combo configuration because the GPU cannot convert the CPU's capability into frames.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where playable frame rates are achievable. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS is 39, whereas 1440p Medium drops to 32 FPS and 4K Medium falls to 23 FPS.

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

A: This combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 7.5% of all systems tested in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is severely limiting. The Intel Arc B370 ranks at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 ranks at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The frame rate scaling across resolutions confirms a GPU bottleneck.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 50 FPS average, while Ultra settings produce 28 FPS average. This is a 22 FPS difference between the lowest and highest quality presets.

Q: Does this combo provide consistent frame pacing at any setting?

A: The Medium preset at 1080p is the only setting with full min/max data showing reasonable consistency: 33 FPS minimum, 39 FPS average, and 45 FPS maximum. The 4K Medium preset shows a wider relative variance with 20 FPS minimum and 27 FPS maximum.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta).

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. It features 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, providing 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 12.29 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s.

The GPU's memory configuration is system shared, meaning it uses the same DDR5 memory as the CPU. The memory bus width and bandwidth are system dependent, which is a significant disadvantage for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams large terrain textures and photogrammetry data. The lack of dedicated VRAM means the GPU must constantly access system memory, competing with the CPU for bandwidth.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Arc B370 scores 1184, placing it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-power parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (-0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (-0.5% delta), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (-0.7% delta). These comparisons show that the Arc B370's performance is aligned with integrated graphics from over a decade ago, which is a poor fit for a modern flight simulator.

The GPU's TDP is 25 W, which is extremely low, and it uses no power connectors. This is an integrated part designed for thin-and-light laptops or low-power desktops, not for gaming. The slot width is IGP, confirming that this is not a discrete card but part of the processor package.

The measured FPS data reflects this GPU's limitations. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 17, which is essentially a slideshow. At 1080p Low, the GPU manages 50 FPS, but this is the ceiling for this part. The GPU's 20 ROPs are likely the primary bottleneck for fill-rate-dependent scenes, while the 40 TMUs limit texture throughput in terrain-heavy areas.

The ray tracing cores are present but effectively irrelevant at these performance levels, as enabling any ray-traced effects would likely halve the already-low frame rates. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it has modern API support, but the underlying hardware cannot leverage these features at playable frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable settings for a playable experience are at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium presets. The Low preset delivers 50 FPS average, which is smooth, but the visual quality may be too degraded for a flight simulator where reading instruments and spotting runways is critical. The Medium preset at 1080p provides 39 FPS average with a 33 FPS minimum and 45 FPS maximum, which is a better balance.

The 1080p Medium settings are the recommended starting point. The min FPS of 33 ensures that the frame rate does not drop below playable levels during busy scenes like airport approaches or dense urban areas. The max FPS of 45 shows there is some headroom, but not enough to push to High settings without risking stutters.

The High preset at 1080p drops to 30 FPS average, and the Ultra preset falls to 28 FPS. These settings are not recommended because the frame rate drops below the 30 FPS threshold that most flight sim enthusiasts consider the minimum for smooth camera movement. The jump from Medium to High yields a 9 FPS loss, which is significant given the already-marginal performance.

At higher resolutions, the data shows that no preset is recommended. The best result at 1440p is 41 FPS on Low, but this sacrifices too much visual fidelity. The 1440p Medium drops to 32 FPS, and 4K is entirely unplayable with even Low settings producing only 30 FPS. Users should avoid anything above 1080p with this combo.

For users who prioritize smoothness over visuals, the 1080p Low preset at 50 FPS is the safest choice. For those who want a balance, 1080p Medium at 39 FPS is acceptable. The game's in-game dynamic settings could potentially help, but the measured data does not include any adaptive quality results, so the fixed presets are the only basis for recommendation.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 50 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, 33 FPS minimum, 45 FPS maximum
• High: 30 FPS average
• Ultra: 28 FPS average

2560x1440:

• Low: 41 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average, 27 FPS minimum, 36 FPS maximum
• High: 24 FPS average
• Ultra: 23 FPS average

3840x2160:

• Low: 30 FPS average
• Medium: 23 FPS average, 20 FPS minimum, 27 FPS maximum
• High: 18 FPS average
• Ultra: 17 FPS average

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy across all resolutions. At 1080p, the system can maintain playable frame rates up to Medium settings, but High and Ultra push the average below 30 FPS. The 1440p results show that even Low settings only produce 41 FPS, which is borderline, and Medium drops to 32 FPS with a 27 FPS minimum that may cause noticeable stutters.

At 4K, all settings produce unplayable results. The highest average is 30 FPS at Low, and the lowest is 17 FPS at Ultra. The Medium preset at 4K shows the most complete data with a 20 FPS minimum and 27 FPS maximum, which indicates that the frame rate fluctuates significantly during gameplay. This variance is likely due to the system shared memory struggling to keep up with the terrain data streaming at 4K resolution.

The progression from 1080p Low to 4K Low shows a 20 FPS drop (50 to 30), which is a 40% reduction. The progression from 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra shows an 11 FPS drop (28 to 17), which is a 39% reduction. This consistent percentage drop across settings suggests that the GPU's scaling is roughly linear with pixel count, confirming that it is fill-rate limited rather than compute limited.

The Medium presets across all resolutions provide the only min/max data points, which allows for frame pacing analysis. At 1080p Medium, the variance is 12 FPS (33 to 45). At 1440p Medium, the variance is 9 FPS (27 to 36). At 4K Medium, the variance is 7 FPS (20 to 27). The decreasing variance at higher resolutions indicates that the system becomes more consistently GPU-bound as the resolution increases, with less CPU-related frame time spikes.