Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding flight simulation title, and the measured performance of the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus paired with the Intel Arc B390 places this combination near the bottom of the tested hardware pool. The combo ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested configurations, placing it in the 11th percentile of all systems benchmarked for this game. This is a clear indicator that the system will struggle to deliver smooth, playable frame rates in most scenarios, and the data suggests that users should expect a heavily compromised experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's overall rank of 2665 out of 2996 tested combinations is a definitive statement about its capabilities. With only 331 configurations performing worse, this system is firmly in the lower tier of hardware for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The percentile position reflects a fundamental mismatch between the game's requirements and the system's output. The Intel Arc B390, which is an integrated graphics processor, is the primary bottleneck, and its performance ceiling is severely limiting the otherwise capable Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus.

The 24-core, 24-thread CPU is a top-tier processor, scoring 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 7,303 in single-core tests, ranking in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. However, the benchmark results show that this processing power is largely untapped in this specific game configuration. The data indicates a massive imbalance: the CPU is capable of far more, but the GPU cannot keep up. This is not a case of a balanced system; it is a case of a high-end processor being paired with a graphics solution that is not designed for this level of graphical workload. The rank of 2665 is a direct consequence of this bottleneck, making the system's overall standing a reflection of its weakest link.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the defining component in this system's performance profile. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a 3 nm process node. Its specifications, including a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, are the key factors in its output. It has 1536 shading units and 24 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, which is a modest figure for modern gaming.

Most critically, the GPU uses "System Shared" memory. This means it relies on the system's main DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which in practice means it is sharing memory bandwidth with the CPU, leading to significant performance penalties in memory-intensive applications like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's benchmark score is equally telling: it scores only 1,482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463 score, 1.3% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1,460 score, 1.5% slower). These are legacy, low-end mobile parts, which underscores how underpowered this integrated solution is for a modern flight simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a predictable but severe decline as resolution increases, which clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting factor. At 1080p, the Low preset achieves an average of 56 FPS, which is the only playable result in the entire dataset. As the resolution increases, the frame rate drops dramatically. At 1440p, the Low preset average falls to 45 FPS, and at 4K, it plummets to 33 FPS. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU-bound system, where the rendering workload at higher resolutions overwhelms the graphics processor.

The gap between 1080p and 4K is stark. For the High preset, the average FPS drops from 33 at 1080p to 26 at 1440p and finally to 19 at 4K. This represents a 42% reduction in frame rate from 1080p to 4K. The Medium preset shows a similar trend, dropping from 43 FPS at 1080p to 35 FPS at 1440p and 26 FPS at 4K. The data suggests that the system is not CPU-limited at any resolution; if it were, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions. The fact that performance scales so heavily with resolution confirms that the Intel Arc B390's rendering capabilities are the primary constraint. The CPU is waiting on the GPU at every setting, and the GPU is simply unable to produce higher frame rates as the pixel count increases.

FAQ

Q: Is this combination capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at a stable 60 FPS?

A: No. The measured data shows that the highest average FPS achieved is 56 at 1080p with the Low preset. All other settings and resolutions produce lower averages, with 4K Ultra averaging only 19 FPS. A stable 60 FPS is not achievable with this hardware.

Q: Which component is the primary bottleneck in this system for this game?

A: The Intel Arc B390 GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU is a high-end 24-core processor in the 96th percentile, but the GPU scores in the 9th percentile. The FPS scaling with resolution (from 56 FPS at 1080p Low to 33 FPS at 4K Low) indicates a GPU-bound scenario, not a CPU-bound one.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its closest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GPU scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1,460), and 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446). These rivals are all legacy, low-performance parts.

Q: What is the best FPS result recorded for this combo, and under what conditions?

A: The best result is an average of 56 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset. This is the only configuration that breaks the 50 FPS threshold.

Q: Does the 24-core CPU provide any benefit in this game with this GPU?

A: The benchmark data suggests not. While the CPU is powerful, the GPU's performance ceiling prevents the system from taking advantage of it. The FPS results are entirely constrained by the GPU, and the CPU's capabilities are effectively wasted in this pairing for this title.

Q: Are the 4K results playable?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 33 (Low preset), and the Ultra preset averages only 19 FPS. These results are well below the threshold for smooth, playable gameplay in a flight simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive look at the system's performance across three resolutions and four quality presets.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 56 FPS (no min/max data provided)
• Medium: Average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS
• High: Average 33 FPS (no min/max data provided)
• Ultra: Average 31 FPS (no min/max data provided)

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 45 FPS (no min/max data provided)
• Medium: Average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS
• High: Average 26 FPS (no min/max data provided)
• Ultra: Average 25 FPS (no min/max data provided)

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 33 FPS (no min/max data provided)
• Medium: Average 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS
• High: Average 19 FPS (no min/max data provided)
• Ultra: Average 19 FPS (no min/max data provided)

The data shows a consistent pattern. For each resolution, the Low preset offers the highest frame rate, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra being the most demanding. At 1080p, the jump from Low to Medium results in a 13 FPS drop (from 56 to 43). The jump from High to Ultra is minimal (33 to 31), suggesting the Ultra preset adds a significant load that the GPU cannot handle, resulting in diminishing returns. At 4K, the High and Ultra presets both result in an average of 19 FPS, indicating that the GPU is completely saturated and cannot differentiate between these high-demand settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is a flagship processor from the Arrow Lake Refresh generation, built on a 3 nm process. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. It has a 36 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel interface. Its synthetic benchmarks are impressive: 51,731 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 7,303 in Cinebench R23 single-core, and a Passmark multithread score of 60,860. It ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 84,003.

However, in the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator with this specific GPU, the CPU's role is largely passive. The data shows that the frame rates are consistently low and scale directly with resolution and settings, which is the hallmark of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see less variation in FPS across resolutions, or the system would be unable to maintain a minimum frame rate. The CPU is not the cause of the low performance; it is the GPU that is holding the system back. The CPU's potential is entirely untapped, as the system's performance is dictated by the integrated graphics solution. The processor's high single-thread score of 7,303 could theoretically help in a CPU-bound scenario, but this is not the case here.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that approaches a playable experience is 1080p with the Low preset, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the sole instance where the system breaks the 50 FPS barrier. For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, this is the only viable option. The Medium preset at 1080p drops to an average of 43 FPS, which may be acceptable for some, but the minimum of 37 FPS indicates potential stutters in complex scenes.

At 1440p, the Low preset is the only one that achieves an average above 40 FPS (45 FPS). The Medium preset at 35 FPS is borderline, but its minimum of 30 FPS will likely lead to noticeable hitches. All other settings at 1440p, and all settings at 4K, produce average frame rates below 35 FPS, which are not recommended for a smooth experience. The data suggests that the system is fundamentally unsuited for high-fidelity flight simulation. The best experience, according to the measured rows, is to run the game at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This will provide the most consistent and highest frame rate possible. Moving to Medium at 1080p sacrifices 13 FPS on average for improved visuals, but it remains the second-best option. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution, as they fail to provide an acceptable level of performance, with averages falling to 19 FPS at 4K. In summary, the system is strictly limited to low-resolution, low-detail settings for a marginally playable frame rate.