Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and Intel Arc B580 combination delivers a playable experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the system comfortably clears the 60 FPS threshold at Low and Medium settings, with the Medium preset providing the best balance at 76.1 FPS average. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset remains playable at 77.2 FPS average. At 3840x2160, no settings achieve 60 FPS, with the best result being 54.2 FPS at Low settings. The data indicates a system that is capable, but heavily dependent on resolution and preset choices for a smooth experience.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G at the 71st percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17507. Its nearest rivals in the recorded data are a cluster of processors with near-identical average scores. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE scores 17482, a negligible 0.1% difference from the 4600G. The Intel Core 7 150U scores 17395, sitting 0.6% lower. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE scores 17614, which is 0.6% higher, and the Intel Core i3-14100T scores 17648, 0.8% higher. In practical terms, swapping the 4600G for any of these chips would produce nearly indistinguishable CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the deltas are all within a single percentage point.

For the GPU side, the Intel Arc B580 sits at the 68th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23021. Its nearest rivals show a similar tight grouping. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23061, a 0.2% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, which is 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23172, 0.7% higher, and the NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249, 1.0% higher. These results indicate that the Arc B580's raw compute performance aligns closely with these cards, meaning users migrating from any of these GPUs would see comparable frame rates in this title, assuming no driver-level discrepancies.

The implication for this specific combo is that the CPU and GPU both sit in a densely populated performance band. The recorded deltas show that neither component has a decisive advantage over its immediate alternatives, so the overall system behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator would be representative of this performance tier rather than unique to the specific parts.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator places a substantial load on both the CPU and GPU, but the measured FPS data reveals how the balance shifts across resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces 97.2 FPS average, while the Ultra preset drops to 57.1 FPS. This 40.1 FPS spread demonstrates that the GPU is the primary limiter as settings increase, since the CPU has enough headroom to feed the graphics card at lower presets. The Medium preset at 76.1 FPS and High at 54.3 FPS show a steady decline as graphical demands rise.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but the GPU pressure intensifies. The Low preset delivers 77.2 FPS, which is 20.0 FPS lower than the same preset at 1920x1080. The Medium preset at 58.3 FPS drops below the 60 FPS threshold, while High sits at 42.3 FPS and Ultra at 41.1 FPS. The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings costs roughly 20.6% performance, indicating that the GPU is becoming the dominant constraint.

At 3840x2160, the GPU bottleneck becomes severe. Even the Low preset falls to 54.2 FPS, a 43.0 FPS reduction from the 1080p Low result. The High preset at 32.8 FPS and Ultra at 28.9 FPS show that the Arc B580 is overwhelmed at 4K. The CPU role diminishes as resolution increases, since the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to expose CPU limitations. The data shows that at 1080p and 1440p, the GPU is the limiting factor at higher presets, while the CPU provides adequate support for lower presets where frame rates are higher.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded measurements cover three resolutions and four settings each, with average FPS values for every combination. Minimum and maximum FPS were not recorded in the database, so the analysis relies on average frame rates.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings produce 97.2 FPS average, Medium produces 76.1 FPS, High produces 54.3 FPS, and Ultra produces 57.1 FPS. The data shows a non-linear relationship between settings and performance, as High and Ultra are close together while Low and Medium are significantly faster.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 77.2 FPS for Low, 58.3 FPS for Medium, 42.3 FPS for High, and 41.1 FPS for Ultra. The Medium preset falls just below the 60 FPS playable threshold, making Low the only viable option for smooth gameplay at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 54.2 FPS for Low, 44.4 FPS for Medium, 32.8 FPS for High, and 28.9 FPS for Ultra. None of these settings reach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the lowest settings struggle to maintain a consistent frame rate. The scaling from 1440p Low to 4K Low represents a 23.0 FPS drop, illustrating the steep performance cost of 4K rendering on this GPU.

The verdict data confirms these observations. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings. At 2560x1440, only Low is playable, with a best average of 77.2 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low and Medium are playable, with Medium providing the best average at 76.1 FPS.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the experience depends entirely on the chosen resolution and preset. At 1920x1080, the system clears 60 FPS at Low and Medium settings. The Medium preset at 76.1 FPS average is the recommended configuration, as it offers a comfortable margin above the playable threshold while providing better visual quality than Low. The High preset at 54.3 FPS and Ultra at 57.1 FPS fall short of 60 FPS, so those should be avoided for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable only at Low settings, with a 77.2 FPS average. This is a viable option for users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 58.3 FPS is borderline, falling just below the 60 FPS threshold, so it may be acceptable for some users but does not meet the strict playable criteria.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot achieve 60 FPS at any preset. The best result is 54.2 FPS at Low settings, which is below the threshold. Users with 4K displays should lower the resolution to 1440p or 1080p for a playable experience. The recorded data shows no playable settings at 4K.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Low or Medium settings, and at 2560x1440 with Low settings. At 3840x2160, no settings achieve 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best settings preset at 1920x1080?

A: The Medium preset is the best playable option, with an average FPS of 76.1. It provides a comfortable margin above the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Is the system playable at 2560x1440?

A: Only at Low settings, which produces an average of 77.2 FPS. The Medium preset at 58.3 FPS falls just below the playable threshold.

Q: What performance can I expect at 3840x2160?

A: The system cannot reach 60 FPS at any preset at 4K. The best result is 54.2 FPS at Low settings, with High at 32.8 FPS and Ultra at 28.9 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G scores 17507 on average, with nearest rivals within 0.8% performance. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE is 0.1% higher, and the Intel Core i3-14100T is 0.8% higher.

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

A: The Intel Arc B580 scores 23021 on average. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP is 0.2% higher, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 is 0.6% lower and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is 0.7% higher.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing of AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and Intel Arc B580 ranks 2849 out of 3714 total combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the lower portion of the ranking, at approximately the 23rd percentile. The rank reflects the combination's limited ability to run the game at high settings and high resolutions, despite the individual components performing adequately in their respective benchmark categories.

The ranking is driven primarily by the GPU's difficulty at 4K resolution and the CPU's moderate single-thread performance. The recorded data shows that the system is competitive at 1080p and 1440p Low settings, but falls behind at higher presets. Users considering this configuration should weigh the 1080p and 1440p results favorably, while understanding that 4K gameplay is not feasible. The 2849 rank among 3714 combos indicates that most tested systems offer better performance in this specific title, but the combo remains viable for users targeting 1080p Medium or 1440p Low.