Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured frame rates for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 reveal a steep performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 56 FPS. Moving to 1440p drops that to 45 FPS, a reduction of roughly 20%. At 4K, the Low preset yields just 33 FPS, which is a 41% decrease from the 1080p result. This pattern indicates that the integrated graphics solution is the dominant limiting factor; the scaling is nearly linear with pixel count, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload where fill rate and memory bandwidth are exhausted.

Examining the Medium preset reinforces this conclusion. The 1080p Medium average is 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50. At 1440p Medium, the average falls to 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and maximum of 40. The 4K Medium result drops to 26 FPS average, with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30. The consistency of the minimum-to-maximum spread across resolutions — roughly 8 FPS at each step — suggests that the frame pacing is stable but that the ceiling is hard-capped by the graphics processor's throughput. There is no evidence of CPU-side stuttering or variable frame time spikes that would indicate a processor bottleneck.

The High and Ultra presets tell a similar story but with lower absolute numbers. At 1080p High, the average is 33 FPS; at 1440p High, it is 26 FPS; and at 4K High, it is 19 FPS. The Ultra preset yields 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra at any given resolution is small — just 2 FPS at 1080p and 1 FPS at 1440p and 4K. This compression suggests that the additional rendering features enabled by Ultra are not the primary cost; rather, the base scene complexity and resolution are what strain the Arc B390. The data indicates that this combo is firmly entry-level for this simulator, with playable frame rates only achievable at 1080p Low or Medium.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations, a position that aligns with the measured frame rates. The percentile ranking for the GPU alone is 9th percentile among all GPUs, and the combo's in-game rank mirrors this poor showing. The CPU, by contrast, is a high performer: the Core Ultra 7 265K sits in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70,879. This stark mismatch — a top-tier processor paired with an entry-level integrated GPU — explains why the combo ranking is so low despite the CPU's strength.

The data shows that the CPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks include the Intel Xeon 6511P (average score 71,051, delta -0.2%), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (average score 71,370, delta -0.7%), the Intel Core i7-14700KF (average score 70,163, delta +1%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F (average score 69,996, delta +1.3%). These deltas are all within 1.3% of the Core Ultra 7 265K, indicating that the processor is competitive with high-end server and desktop parts in raw compute. However, none of this CPU strength translates into meaningful frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator because the GPU is the limiting component.

The GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all legacy or low-end discrete parts: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (average score 1,463, delta +1.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (average score 1,460, delta +1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (average score 1,446, delta +2.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (average score 1,443, delta +2.7%). The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 is only marginally above these decade-old parts. This contextualizes the in-game rank: the combo is essentially performing at the level of a system with a very old discrete GPU, despite having a modern 20-core processor. For users expecting the Core Ultra 7 265K's 94th percentile standing to boost gaming performance, the data is clear — it does not.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, which is a mobile-oriented design. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2,500 MHz, and it features 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS. These specifications are modest for a modern game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which demands substantial rasterization throughput for terrain and weather rendering.

Crucially, the memory configuration is "System Shared" — the GPU has no dedicated VRAM and instead relies on the system's DDR5 memory. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning performance scales with the CPU's dual-channel memory controller, which provides up to 102.4 GB/s. This shared memory architecture is a significant bottleneck for flight simulation, as the game streams large textures and geometry data. The lack of dedicated VRAM means that at higher resolutions and settings, the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, further degrading performance.

The measured frame rates reflect this limitation. At 4K High, the average is 19 FPS; at 4K Ultra, it is also 19 FPS. The identical scores at High and Ultra suggest that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling — likely memory bandwidth or fill rate — rather than being limited by specific graphical features. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 places the GPU in the 9th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all from the GT 700/800 series, which were entry-level parts from over a decade ago. The data indicates that the Arc B390 is suitable for basic desktop tasks but is not a capable gaming GPU for this title, regardless of the CPU's strength.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1080p with the Low preset, which achieves an average of 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches playable smoothness, and it represents a 30% improvement over the 1080p Medium preset's 43 FPS average. The Low preset eliminates the most demanding visual effects, which is necessary to keep the Arc B390 within its performance envelope. Users prioritizing frame rate over visual fidelity should select this option.

For those who can tolerate lower frame rates, the 1080p Medium preset offers a balance, with an average of 43 FPS and a minimum of 37 FPS. The minimum frame rate staying above 30 FPS is notable, as it suggests that the frame pacing remains consistent even when the average dips. However, the 1440p Medium preset drops to a 35 FPS average with a 30 FPS minimum, which borders on the edge of playability for a flight simulator where smooth camera pans are essential. The 4K Medium preset at 26 FPS average is below the threshold for comfortable play.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution. At 1080p, both average around 31-33 FPS, which is too low for a smooth experience. The data shows that the jump from Medium to High at 1080p costs 10 FPS (from 43 to 33), while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS (from 33 to 31). This indicates that High and Ultra offer diminishing returns in visual quality relative to the frame rate penalty. For this hardware, the only sensible path is 1080p Low or Medium, with the understanding that the game's graphical potential will remain largely untapped.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that 1080p is the only resolution that yields playable frame rates. At 1080p Low, the average is 56 FPS; at 1080p Medium, it is 43 FPS. At 1440p, the best average is 45 FPS (Low), and at 4K, the best average is 33 FPS (Low). All higher settings at 1440p and 4K fall below 35 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482. This is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1,463), 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (score 1,460), 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (score 1,446), and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (score 1,443). The GPU sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs.

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

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Core Ultra 7 265K ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70,879. In contrast, the Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among GPUs. The frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation, not CPU limitation.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. This is a 25 FPS difference, or roughly a 45% reduction in frame rate. The Medium preset sits between at 43 FPS, and the High preset at 33 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU's high core count help in this game?

A: The data does not show a CPU benefit. The Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. However, the combo ranks 2665th out of 2996 in this game, indicating that the CPU's capabilities are not translating into higher frame rates because the integrated GPU cannot keep up.

Q: Is the Arc B390's shared memory a factor in performance?

A: Yes. The GPU uses "System Shared" memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. This is consistent with the sharp frame rate drops at higher resolutions, as the GPU must share memory bandwidth with the CPU for game data and textures.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a 20-core, 20-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a 125 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel interface and a peak memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 35,850 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,020 in single-core, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 23,085 and single-core score of 2,713.

These figures place the CPU in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 70,879. Its nearest rivals are all high-end parts: the Intel Xeon 6511P scores 71,051 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 scores 71,370 (-0.7% delta), the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70,163 (+1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F scores 69,996 (+1.3% delta). This demonstrates that the Core Ultra 7 265K is a top-tier processor for compute workloads, capable of matching or exceeding server-class Xeons.

However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is largely negated by the GPU's limitations. The measured frame rates show no evidence of CPU-bound behavior — for instance, the 1080p Low preset delivers 56 FPS, but the 1440p Low preset drops to 45 FPS and the 4K Low to 33 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain similar across resolutions. The fact that they scale with pixel count confirms that the processor is waiting on the GPU at every setting. The CPU's high single-thread performance (2,020 in Cinebench R23 single-core) is theoretically beneficial for flight simulation, which often has single-threaded rendering paths, but the Arc B390's 9th percentile GPU ranking prevents this advantage from materializing. The data suggests that pairing this CPU with a discrete GPU would yield dramatically better results, but with the integrated Arc B390, the processor's potential is untapped.