Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1920x1080?

A: Yes, at 1080p the combination of AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and Intel Arc B570 delivers a playable experience on Low and Medium presets. The measured average FPS is 86 on Low and 67 on Medium, both clearing the 60 FPS threshold. High and Ultra fall short at 50 and 48 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 2560x1440?

A: At 1440p, only the Low preset stays at or above 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. Medium drops to 54 FPS average, High sits at 41 FPS, and Ultra is at 39 FPS, so none of those three are viable for smooth gameplay.

Q: Is 4K gaming possible with this hardware?

A: No, the data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. Even the Low preset only reaches an average of 51 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors in the database?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G has an average benchmark score of 17,507, which places it at the 71st percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE, scores 17,482, a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core 7 150U is 0.6% behind, while the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE is 0.6% ahead.

Q: How does the GPU compare to similar graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20,556, putting it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534, a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Arc A750 is 0.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X is 0.5% behind.

Q: What frame rates can be expected in the most demanding preset?

A: At Ultra settings, the system averages 48 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K. These numbers indicate that Ultra is not a playable option at any resolution for this game, as all fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Ryzen 5 4600G sits in a tight cluster of processors. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE is essentially a statistical tie at 0.1% faster, while the Intel Core 7 150U is 0.6% slower and the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE is 0.6% faster. The Intel Core i3-14100T trails by 0.8%. This means that swapping the CPU for any of these alternatives would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the difference in average benchmark scores is under 1% in all cases.

For the GPU side, the Intel Arc B570 is similarly matched with several other cards. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is 0.1% ahead, the Intel Arc A750 is 0.1% behind, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is 0.4% behind, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X is 0.5% behind. Any of these GPUs would deliver essentially the same performance profile in this flight simulator, meaning the choice between them would come down to other factors like driver stability or feature support rather than raw frame rate differences.

The practical implication is that this entire cluster of CPU and GPU combinations would produce very similar results in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The benchmark data shows that the 4600G and Arc B570 pair is representative of a broader group of mid-range hardware that can handle 1080p Medium settings but struggles at higher resolutions or more demanding presets.

CPU and GPU Roles

The measured FPS data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the system shows a wide spread between Low and Ultra: 86 FPS on Low versus 48 FPS on Ultra. This 38 FPS gap indicates that the GPU is increasingly stressed as settings rise, since the resolution is relatively modest for the graphics card.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset drops to 69 FPS, which is a 17 FPS reduction compared to 1080p Low. The Medium preset falls from 67 to 54 FPS, and High goes from 50 to 41 FPS. This scaling pattern suggests that resolution increases put additional load on the GPU, but the CPU keeps up reasonably well since the relative ordering of presets remains consistent.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset yields 51 FPS, Medium 40 FPS, High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. The 4K results show a more pronounced drop from 1440p, especially on Low where the system loses 18 FPS. This is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario: the Arc B570 has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory with 380.0 GB/s bandwidth, and at 4K the pixel throughput demands become severe. The CPU's role diminishes at this resolution because the frame rate is constrained by the graphics card's ability to fill pixels.

The data implies that the CPU, a 6-core 12-thread Zen 2 part with a 65 W TDP, is sufficient for this game at lower settings and resolutions. The bottleneck appears to be the GPU once settings climb or resolution increases. At 1080p Medium, the system achieves 67 FPS with minimums at 57 FPS, suggesting the CPU can feed frames fast enough. But at 1440p Medium, the average drops to 54 FPS, which aligns more with GPU limitation than CPU constraint.

The Verdict

According to the verdict by resolution, this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with significant caveats. At 1920x1080, the playable settings are Low and Medium, with the best option being Medium at 67 FPS average. At 2560x1440, only Low is playable, achieving 69 FPS average. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning all presets fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

The practical takeaway is that this hardware is suitable for 1080p gaming with modest settings. Users who want smooth gameplay should stick to 1080p Medium, which clears the threshold by 7 FPS. For 1440p, the Low preset is the only viable option, and it just barely exceeds 60 FPS. 4K is not a realistic target for this combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The frame time data for 1080p Medium shows a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS, indicating some variability but generally stable performance. The 1440p Medium preset has a minimum of 46 FPS, which would produce noticeable stutters during complex scenes such as city flyovers or dense cloud formations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data provides exact figures for each resolution and preset combination.

At 3840x2160:

• Low: average 51 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded
• Medium: average 40 FPS, minimum 34 FPS, maximum 46 FPS
• High: average 30 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded
• Ultra: average 28 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded

At 2560x1440:

• Low: average 69 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded
• Medium: average 54 FPS, minimum 46 FPS, maximum 62 FPS
• High: average 41 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded
• Ultra: average 39 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded

At 1920x1080:

• Low: average 86 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded
• Medium: average 67 FPS, minimum 57 FPS, maximum 77 FPS
• High: average 50 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded
• Ultra: average 48 FPS, no minimum or maximum recorded

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is always the fastest, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra being the slowest. The gap between Low and Ultra widens as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference is 38 FPS; at 1440p, it is 30 FPS; at 4K, it is 23 FPS. This narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes the limiting factor, reducing the impact of preset changes.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 67 FPS. This is the recommended setting for a balance between visual quality and smooth gameplay. High and Ultra are not playable, as they average 50 and 48 FPS respectively.

For 2560x1440, the only preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold is Low, averaging 69 FPS. Medium, High, and Ultra all fall short at 54, 41, and 39 FPS respectively. Users at this resolution must accept the lowest visual quality to maintain playable frame rates.

For 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 51 FPS, which is still 9 FPS below the threshold. Medium averages 40 FPS, High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. This resolution is effectively not playable with this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The data suggests that 1080p Medium is the sweet spot for this combination. The 67 FPS average provides headroom above the threshold, and the minimum of 57 FPS indicates that even the worst-case scenes stay close to playable. At 1440p Low, the 69 FPS average is similar, but the visual quality reduction is significant.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this combination of AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and Intel Arc B570 ranks 2,988 out of 3,714 tested combos. This places it in the lower half of all systems tested for this game, specifically at the 19th percentile from the top (or 81st percentile from the bottom).

This ranking reflects the measured performance data: the system can handle 1080p Medium and 1440p Low, but fails at 4K and at higher presets. The 3,714 combos in the database include a wide range of hardware, from entry-level integrated graphics to high-end enthusiast builds. A rank of 2,988 indicates that this system is positioned toward the lower end of the spectrum, which is consistent with the mid-range nature of both the CPU and GPU.

The CPU's 71st percentile ranking among all processors and the GPU's 65th percentile ranking among all graphics cards might suggest a more capable system, but the game-specific results temper that expectation. Microsoft Flight Simulator is particularly demanding due to its streaming of terrain data and complex scenery, which likely contributes to the lower combo rank. The 6-core 12-thread CPU with 8 MB of L3 cache and the GPU with 10 GB of memory are sufficient for many other titles, but this flight simulator pushes them to their limits.

The rank also implies that there are 726 combos in the database that perform worse than this system, which means it is not at the very bottom. However, the majority of tested systems perform better, so users should have realistic expectations about this hardware's capabilities in this specific game.