Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + Intel Arc B370

This pairing of Intel's 24-core Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with the integrated Arc B370 graphics (an IGP solution on the Panther Lake platform) produces a fundamentally GPU-limited experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The measured data shows a combo that ranks near the bottom of the database — 2770th out of 2996 tested combinations — with average frame rates that rarely exceed 50 FPS even at the lowest settings and 1080p resolution. The Arc B370, with its 1280 shading units and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, which explains why this system's performance profile is dominated by the graphics subsystem rather than the capable CPU beneath it.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across four presets and three resolutions paints a clear picture: this combo cannot sustain playable frame rates at higher quality settings, and users must choose between visual fidelity and responsiveness. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest measured average across the entire dataset. The Medium preset at the same resolution drops to 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS. High at 1080p yields 30 FPS average, while Ultra falls to 28 FPS average.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that consistently approaches smooth gameplay, with the 50 FPS average representing a 28% improvement over the next-best measured preset (Low at 2560x1440, which averages 41 FPS). The Medium preset at 1080p offers a compromise, but the 39 FPS average with a 33 FPS minimum suggests occasional stutter in dense scenes. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 41 FPS, which is playable but noticeably less fluid than the 1080p Low result. The High preset at 1440p averages 24 FPS, and Ultra at that resolution averages 23 FPS — both below the threshold for comfortable simulation play. At 3840x2160, every preset falls below 31 FPS average, with Low at 30 FPS, Medium at 23 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS.

The data indicates that users should select Low settings at 1920x1080 for the smoothest experience, or Medium at the same resolution if they prioritize visual quality and can tolerate a 39 FPS average. The Medium preset's minimum of 33 FPS is the highest minimum recorded for any preset above Low, making it the safest choice among non-Low presets.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor with a 25 W TDP, base clock of 300 MHz, and boost clock of 2400 MHz. Its memory configuration is "System Shared" with system-dependent bandwidth, which means it relies on the host system's DDR5 memory (dual-channel, 115.2 GB/s) rather than dedicated VRAM. The GPU's pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. With 10 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, the architecture is modern, but the raw throughput is limited: 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16.

The benchmark data shows a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, placing the Arc B370 at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark database are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (avgScore 1186, deltaPct -0.2), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (avgScore 1190, deltaPct -0.5), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (avgScore 1192, deltaPct -0.7), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (avgScore 1168, deltaPct 1.4). These are all legacy or low-power parts, confirming that the Arc B370's performance class is far below what Microsoft Flight Simulator demands for high-fidelity rendering.

In this game specifically, the GPU's limitations manifest as severe frame rate drops when settings increase. Moving from Low to Medium at 1080p reduces the average from 50 to 39 FPS (a 22% decrease), and from Medium to High reduces it further to 30 FPS (a 23% decrease). At 4K, the GPU is entirely overwhelmed, with even Low settings producing only 30 FPS average. The shared memory architecture means the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, and the system-dependent bandwidth figure suggests performance will vary with the host platform's memory configuration.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank in this game is 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 7.5% of all tested systems. This is a very low ranking, consistent with the GPU's 5th percentile standing and the demanding nature of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU, by contrast, is a top-tier part — the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest CPU rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (avgScore 83807, deltaPct 0.2), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (avgScore 83090, deltaPct 1.1), the AMD EPYC 9135 (avgScore 82980, deltaPct 1.2), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 (avgScore 85072, deltaPct -1.3).

The stark contrast between the CPU's high percentile and the combo's low rank underscores the GPU-bound nature of this system. The data shows that the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is more than capable of feeding the Arc B370, but the graphics processor cannot translate that CPU headroom into playable frame rates at higher settings. The combo rank of 2770 suggests that most other tested systems, including those with much weaker CPUs, outperform this pairing because they use dedicated graphics solutions rather than an IGP.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured averages are 50 FPS on Low, 39 FPS on Medium (min 33, max 45), 30 FPS on High, and 28 FPS on Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra represents a 44% reduction in average frame rate, from 50 to 28 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 41 FPS on Low, 32 FPS on Medium (min 27, max 36), 24 FPS on High, and 23 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Ultra drop is 44% as well, from 41 to 23 FPS, mirroring the 1080p scaling pattern.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 30 FPS on Low, 23 FPS on Medium (min 20, max 27), 18 FPS on High, and 17 FPS on Ultra. The Low-to-Ultra reduction here is 43%, from 30 to 17 FPS.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the only min/max data in the dataset, with the 1080p Medium showing a 33-45 FPS range, the 1440p Medium showing 27-36 FPS, and the 4K Medium showing 20-27 FPS. This suggests the Medium preset was measured with additional detail, but the pattern is consistent with the other presets. The single highest measured average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, and the single lowest is 17 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data shows that resolution has a larger impact on performance than settings at the higher resolutions, but at 1080p, settings matter more — the spread from Low to Ultra at 1080p is 22 FPS, while at 4K it is only 13 FPS.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system?

A: The measured data shows the highest average FPS of 50 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 39 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. For the smoothest experience, 1080p Low is the clear choice.

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

A: The Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is within 1.4% of four rivals: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, deltaPct -0.2), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, deltaPct -0.5), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, deltaPct -0.7), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, deltaPct 1.4). All of these are within a 2% band, indicating the Arc B370 performs at the level of legacy entry-level GPUs.

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

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 5th percentile. The combo ranks 2770th out of 2996, which is far below what the CPU alone would suggest, pointing to the GPU as the bottleneck.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 4K with this combo?

A: At 3840x2160, the measured averages are 30 FPS on Low, 23 FPS on Medium (min 20, max 27), 18 FPS on High, and 17 FPS on Ultra. No preset at 4K exceeds 30 FPS average, making 4K gameplay challenging.

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

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84003. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, deltaPct 0.2), the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, deltaPct 1.1), the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, deltaPct 1.2), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072, deltaPct -1.3). The 290K Plus is within 1.3% of all four rivals.

Q: Does the Medium preset provide a better experience than Low at 1080p?

A: The Medium preset at 1080p averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS, compared to 50 FPS average for Low. The 11 FPS difference (22%) is substantial, but the Medium preset's minimum of 33 FPS is still playable. Users who prefer visual quality may choose Medium, but Low offers a meaningfully smoother experience.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It is built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus providing 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC memory is supported. The CPU uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes and includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Benchmark results show strong multi-core and single-core performance: Cinebench R15 multicore scores 5214 and singlecore 736; R20 multicore scores 21727 and singlecore 3067; R23 multicore scores 51731 and singlecore 7303. Passmark results include a multithread score of 60860, singlethread score of 4823, physics score of 3315, and data compression score of 698346. The average benchmark score is 84003, placing it at the 96th percentile.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with geometry and simulation data. The 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock provide ample compute headroom, as evidenced by the CPU's high percentile ranking. However, because the Arc B370 is an IGP with only 1280 shading units, the CPU's capabilities are underutilized in this pairing. The measured FPS values are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario where the CPU is not the constraint — if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see larger FPS differences between resolutions, but the data shows only modest scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K at the same settings.

Resolution Scaling

The data shows how frame rates drop as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the averages are 50 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. This represents an 18% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the averages are 39 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p (an 18% drop), and 23 FPS at 4K (a 41% drop from 1080p). At High settings, the averages are 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p (a 20% drop), and 18 FPS at 4K (a 40% drop). At Ultra settings, the averages are 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p (an 18% drop), and 17 FPS at 4K (a 39% drop).

The consistency of these percentage drops across settings is telling. From 1080p to 1440p, the reduction is consistently 18-20%, and from 1080p to 4K, it is consistently 39-41%. This uniform scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound system, where the render load scales predictably with pixel count. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to remain more constant across resolutions because the CPU's workload (game logic, physics, simulation) does not scale with resolution. The data instead shows a strong correlation between pixel count and performance, confirming that the Arc B370's fill rate and shading throughput are the primary constraints.

The resolution scaling also reveals that the GPU's performance deficit grows with resolution but does so proportionally. The 4K Low average of 30 FPS is exactly 60% of the 1080p Low average of 50 FPS, and the 4K Ultra average of 17 FPS is approximately 61% of the 1080p Ultra average of 28 FPS. This proportionality suggests that the GPU is operating at its efficiency limit across all resolutions, with no unexpected bottlenecks emerging at higher pixel counts. Users seeking better 4K performance would need a more powerful GPU, as the current IGP cannot deliver playable frame rates at that resolution regardless of settings.