Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator shows this combination operating far below the 60 FPS playable threshold across every tested resolution and preset. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates range from 17 FPS on Ultra to 30 FPS on Low. The Medium preset at this resolution records an average of 23 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 20 and 27 FPS respectively. High settings produce an average of 18 FPS, while Ultra dips to 17 FPS, representing the lowest measured average in the entire dataset.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance improves but remains firmly in sub-60 territory. Low settings deliver the best result here at 41 FPS average. Medium follows at 32 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 27 and maximum of 36 FPS. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra drops to 23 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p shows a consistent uplift of roughly 11 to 13 FPS across the comparable presets, suggesting the render resolution is a significant factor in the overall performance ceiling.

At 1920x1080, the best measured average is 50 FPS on Low settings. Medium produces 39 FPS, with minimum and maximum values of 33 and 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 9 FPS. The Ultra preset sits only 2 FPS below High, indicating diminishing returns in the highest quality tier. Notably, no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS threshold, and even the most favorable configuration, 1080p Low, falls 10 FPS short.

The data reveals a pattern where the frame rate roughly scales with resolution, but the preset impact is nonlinear. Low to Medium transitions cost 11 FPS at both 1080p and 1440p, but only 7 FPS at 4K. Medium to High transitions cost 9 FPS at 1080p, 8 FPS at 1440p, and 5 FPS at 4K. High to Ultra transitions are the smallest, costing only 2 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 1 FPS at 4K. This suggests the visual quality gains from Ultra over High come at a relatively modest frame rate penalty compared to the step from Medium to High.

CPU and GPU Roles

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 2 architecture, provides a solid foundation for simulation workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15045 places it in the 71st percentile among all CPUs, indicating capable processing power for flight simulation logic. The single-core score of 2124 in the same test is relevant for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on main thread performance for game logic and asset streaming.

The Intel Arc B370, however, represents a significant bottleneck. This integrated graphics solution, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with 1280 shading units and 20 ROPs, sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it alongside legacy discrete GPUs like the ATI Radeon HD 5770, which scores 1190. The GPU operates with system shared memory, meaning bandwidth is system dependent, which further constrains performance in a game that streams large amounts of terrain and aircraft data.

The benchmark results indicate that the GPU is the dominant limiting factor at every resolution. Consider the scaling pattern: at 1080p Low, the combination achieves 50 FPS, but at 4K Low it drops to 30 FPS. This 40% reduction in average frame rate when quadrupling the pixel count points heavily toward GPU-bound performance. The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities, evidenced by its PassMark multithread score of 17700, are unlikely to be the primary constraint given the relatively low frame rates observed.

The preset scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 22 FPS, while at 4K the same transition costs 13 FPS. The absolute performance at 4K is so low (17 to 30 FPS) that even significant preset reductions cannot recover playable frame rates, which is a classic symptom of severe GPU limitation. The recorded data shows no preset at any resolution approaching 60 FPS, suggesting the integrated GPU simply lacks the raw fill rate and shader throughput required for this title.

Best Settings per Resolution

According to the verdict by resolution, no settings at any resolution achieve the 60 FPS playable threshold. The database records no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best measured average frame rate across all configurations is 50 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This falls 10 FPS short of the playable threshold.

For users who must select settings regardless of the verdict, the data indicates the following optimal configurations. At 3840x2160, Low settings produce the highest average at 30 FPS, though this is still below playable. At 2560x1440, Low settings again lead with 41 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 50 FPS, the best result in the entire dataset. The Medium presets at each resolution provide a modest visual upgrade at a cost of 7 to 11 FPS compared to Low, but none of these configurations reach 60 FPS.

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is nonexistent for this combination. The verdict by resolution explicitly lists empty playable settings arrays for all three resolutions, with null values for best settings and average FPS. This means the database does not classify any preset as playable for this game with this hardware.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals in the database provide context for what similar processing power looks like. The Intel Core i7-1260P scores 17007 in the average benchmark, which is 0.2% lower than the Ryzen 5 3600's 17035 average. The Intel Core i5-11400 scores 17067, 0.2% higher. The AMD EPYC 7573X and EPYC 7742 score 17070 and 16998 respectively, both within 0.2% of the Ryzen 5 3600. These alternatives would deliver nearly identical CPU-side performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning any differences in frame rates would be attributable to the GPU or system configuration.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals paint a stark picture. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. These legacy GPUs, none of which were designed for modern flight simulation at high resolutions, represent the performance tier the Arc B370 occupies. The data suggests that swapping the Arc B370 for any of these alternatives would yield no meaningful improvement in frame rates, as they all sit within 1.4% of the same benchmark score.

The Verdict

The recorded data clearly indicates this combination cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for any resolution, with the playable threshold set at 60 FPS. The best measured average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS short. At 1440p, the best average is 41 FPS, and at 4K, the best average is 30 FPS. No preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS, and the majority of configurations fall well below that mark.

The Ultra preset at 4K averages 17 FPS, which is barely above a slideshow. The Medium preset at 1080p, which might represent a reasonable visual quality compromise, averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS. Even the most favorable configuration, 1080p Low, cannot sustain playable frame rates during demanding flight scenarios. The database classifies this combination as unplayable for Microsoft Flight Simulator across all tested resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which aligns with the measured performance data. The CPU alone performs reasonably well, sitting in the 71st percentile among all CPUs, but the GPU's 5th percentile ranking drags the overall combination down significantly.

The rank reflects the GPU bottleneck. A system with a strong mid-range CPU but an integrated GPU from the entry-level tier produces frame rates that are consistently below playable thresholds. The data shows that this combination is not merely marginally underperforming; it is fundamentally unable to deliver 60 FPS at any resolution or preset, which is reflected in its low rank among the 3714 tested configurations.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database records no playable settings for any resolution. The best measured average frame rate is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best performance this combination can achieve?

A: The highest average frame rate in the measured data is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440, the best is 41 FPS on Low, and at 3840x2160, the best is 30 FPS on Low.

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 at 1186, ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190, AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192, and AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168. All are within 1.4% of the Arc B370's score.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the dominant limiting factor. The CPU sits in the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU sits in the 5th percentile. The frame rates scale heavily with resolution, which indicates GPU-bound performance.

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

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

Q: What rank does this combination hold among all tested systems?

A: It ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems.