Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + Intel Arc B390 combination capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The recorded data shows that at no resolution or preset does this combination reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest average FPS recorded is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G has an average benchmark score of 17,507, placing it in the 71st percentile among all CPUs. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core 7 150U, while trailing the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE by 0.6% and the Intel Core i3-14100T by 0.8%.

Q: Where does the Intel Arc B390 GPU rank compared to other GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1,482. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1,463 (1.3% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, which scores 1,443 (2.7% slower).

Q: What is the best FPS result recorded for this combo at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 33, achieved at Low settings. For comparison, Medium settings yield 26 FPS, while both High and Ultra settings produce 19 FPS averages.

Q: Is there any resolution where the combo achieves a playable result at Medium settings or higher?

A: No. The data shows that at 1920x1080, Medium settings produce an average of 43 FPS, at 2560x1440 Medium yields 35 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Medium delivers 26 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold. The only setting that comes close is 1920x1080 Low at 56 FPS.

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

A: The combo ranks 3,302 out of 3,714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower portion of the database results. This indicates that the majority of tested hardware combinations outperform this pairing.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear pattern where the GPU is the dominant constraint across all resolutions and settings. The Intel Arc B390's position in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1,482, places it near the bottom of the performance spectrum. Its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GT 710, are legacy entry-level parts, which contextualizes the measured frame rates.

Looking at the scaling between resolutions, the impact of the GPU constraint becomes evident. At Low settings, moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 drops the average FPS from 56 to 45, a reduction of 11 FPS. Moving further to 3840x2160 drops it to 33 FPS, another 12 FPS reduction. This consistent degradation as resolution increases points directly at the GPU's rendering limits, as the pixel throughput required at higher resolutions cannot be met by the Arc B390's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The CPU, by contrast, appears to be less of a limiting factor. The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 2 architecture, achieves a 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs. Its multi-threaded scores, such as 13,593 in Cinebench R23 and 15,992 in Passmark multithread, suggest sufficient processing headroom for a flight simulator's simulation logic. However, the single-thread score of 1,919 in Cinebench R23 indicates that the CPU's per-core performance is moderate, which could become relevant in scenarios with heavy single-threaded simulation workloads.

The preset scaling further emphasizes the GPU bottleneck. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium increases the load and drops average FPS from 56 to 43. Moving from Medium to High drops to 33 FPS, and Ultra yields 31 FPS. This steep drop-off across presets, combined with the relatively modest CPU demands of the simulation, suggests that the graphics card's limited shading units (1,536) and texture mapping units (48) are the primary constraint. The Arc B390's 12 ray tracing cores and 24 ROPs cannot sustain the increased geometry and shading complexity at higher presets.

At 2560x1440, the same pattern holds: Low yields 45 FPS, Medium 35 FPS, High 26 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 20 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the 1080p spread. At 3840x2160, the spread narrows to 14 FPS (33 Low versus 19 High/Ultra), indicating that at 4K the GPU is so overwhelmed that even Low settings approach the hardware's limits.

How This Combo Ranks

The recorded data places this combination at rank 3,302 out of 3,714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This percentile position, roughly the bottom 11% of all tested configurations, aligns with the GPU's own low ranking. The Arc B390's 9th percentile standing among all GPUs is the dominant factor in this overall ranking.

The CPU's relative strength does little to boost the combo's position. While the Ryzen 5 4600G outperforms 71% of all CPUs in general benchmarks, the GPU's inability to maintain frame rates above 60 FPS at any setting caps the system's overall capability. This suggests that for this particular game, the GPU's rendering performance is the gatekeeper for playability.

Comparing to other combos in the database, the 3,302nd rank out of 3,714 means that over 400 tested combinations performed worse. These would likely be pairings with even older or less capable GPUs. The nearest GPU rivals, the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710, are all substantially older parts, and combos using those would likely rank lower.

The data indicates that this pairing is positioned for low-resolution, low-preset gaming only. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the 56 FPS average is close to playable, but the verdict data confirms that no resolution or preset clears the 60 FPS bar. This makes the combo marginal for the game, and the rank reflects that marginality.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded measurements, this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution data shows empty playable settings lists for all three resolutions: 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080.

At 3840x2160, the best achievable average is 33 FPS at Low settings, which is roughly half the required frame rate. High and Ultra both produce 19 FPS averages, which would result in a stuttering, unresponsive experience. Medium settings yield 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 FPS, indicating significant frame time variance.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves marginally but remains below the threshold. Low settings produce 45 FPS, Medium yields 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, High achieves 26 FPS, and Ultra delivers 25 FPS. None of these approach 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the closest result is Low settings at 56 FPS average. This is 4 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium settings drop to 43 FPS, High to 33 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. The 56 FPS at Low is tantalizingly close, but it does not meet the 60 FPS requirement.

The data implies that this system is suitable for very low settings at 1080p if the user accepts a frame rate below 60 FPS, but for the game's full experience, this hardware combination falls short. Users seeking a stable 60 FPS would need to consider a different GPU, as the CPU appears capable of supporting higher frame rates if the graphics bottleneck were removed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measurements show the following averages: Low settings produce 33 FPS, Medium produces 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30, High produces 19 FPS, and Ultra produces 19 FPS. The min and max data for Low, High, and Ultra were not recorded, but the Medium setting's range of 22 to 30 FPS illustrates the frame time instability at 4K.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 45 FPS average, Medium at 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. The Medium range shows a 10 FPS spread between minimum and maximum, which indicates moderate frame pacing consistency.

At 1920x1080, the data shows: Low at 56 FPS average, Medium at 43 FPS with a range of 37 to 50, High at 33 FPS, and Ultra at 31 FPS. The Medium range of 37 to 50 FPS represents a 13 FPS variance, suggesting that even at 1080p, the system struggles to maintain consistent frame delivery under load.

The pattern across all resolutions is a monotonic decrease in average FPS as settings increase from Low to Ultra. The gaps between settings are largest at 1080p (13 FPS between Low and Medium, 10 FPS between Medium and High, and 2 FPS between High and Ultra), narrowing at higher resolutions as the GPU becomes the absolute limiting factor.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the 60 FPS playable threshold, no preset at any resolution meets the requirement. The verdict data confirms this with empty playable settings arrays for all three resolutions. However, if assessing the most demanding preset that gets closest to 60 FPS, the data shows:

At 1920x1080, Low settings provide the highest average at 56 FPS. This is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target, but it falls short by 4 FPS. Medium settings at 43 FPS are the next step down.

At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 45 FPS, which is the best result at that resolution. The gap to 60 FPS is 15 FPS, indicating that even the lowest preset cannot approach playability.

At 3840x2160, Low settings produce 33 FPS, which is 27 FPS below the threshold. This resolution is clearly beyond the capabilities of this hardware combination.

For users who must play at 60 FPS, the data suggests that even the lowest settings at 1080p are insufficient. The 56 FPS average at Low settings might be acceptable to some players if they tolerate occasional frame drops below 60, but strictly speaking, no settings combination qualifies as playable per the database's threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G in CPU benchmarks are the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, which scores 17,482 (0.1% lower), the Intel Core 7 150U at 17,395 (0.6% lower), the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE at 17,614 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Core i3-14100T at 17,648 (0.8% higher). These CPUs would deliver nearly identical CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning the GPU would remain the primary bottleneck in any of these pairings.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest GPU rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1,463 (1.3% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1,460 (1.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1,446 (2.5% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1,443 (2.7% lower). These GPUs would produce very similar frame rates in this game, with the Arc B390 having a slight edge over each of them.

If a user were to pair the Ryzen 5 4600G with any of these alternative GPUs, the results would be nearly indistinguishable from the measured data. The delta percentages are all within 3%, which would translate to roughly 1-2 FPS differences at most settings. Conversely, pairing the Arc B390 with any of the listed alternative CPUs would yield similar results, as the GPU is the limiting factor.

The data suggests that this combo sits in a performance cluster with other low-end parts. Users considering upgrades should note that moving to a significantly faster GPU would be necessary to achieve 60 FPS, as the CPU has ample headroom based on its 71st percentile ranking.