Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: No, not at a stable 60 FPS. The recorded data shows the best result at 1920x1080 is 50 FPS on Low settings. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and no settings preset at this resolution reaches that mark.

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo achieves in the game?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 50, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 on Low, and 30 FPS at 3840x2160 on Low.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 has an average benchmark score of 19593. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 scores 19617 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i5-12500 scores 19668 (0.4% higher), the Intel Core i7-10700F scores 19499 (0.5% lower), and the Intel Core i5-11600KF scores 19723 (0.7% higher). The differences are within 1% across all four rivals.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs tested in the database, meaning it performs below the vast majority of graphics cards. Its average benchmark score is 1184.

Q: What resolutions are playable at any preset?

A: According to the verdict data, there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Every resolution fails to reach the 60 FPS threshold across all tested presets.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest competitors?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184, while the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% lower). The Arc B370 is effectively in the same performance class as these older parts.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 in a tight cluster of CPUs with nearly identical average scores. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 is the closest match, with a score of 19617 against the Ryzen 5 5500's 19593, a delta of only 0.1%. The Intel Core i5-12500 sits 0.4% higher at 19668, while the Intel Core i7-10700F trails by 0.5% at 19499. The Intel Core i5-11600KF leads the group at 19723, but that is still just 0.7% ahead. For any of these four CPUs, you would expect nearly identical behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the measured differences are within noise.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B370 is grouped with much older hardware. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, essentially tied with the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168. These deltas range from 0.2% to 1.4%, so any of these GPUs would produce similar FPS numbers in this game. The practical takeaway is that the Arc B370 delivers frame rates comparable to early-2010s discrete graphics, which explains the low 5th percentile ranking.

When pairing the Ryzen 5 5500 with any of these rival GPUs, the CPU is not the bottleneck. The CPU's 73rd percentile ranking indicates a solid mid-range processor, but the GPU's 5th percentile ranking means the graphics card is the limiting factor. Swapping the CPU for a similarly scoring Intel Core i5-12500 or AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 would change nothing measurable. Swapping the GPU for an ATI Radeon HD 5770 would also produce nearly identical results. The system's overall performance class is defined by the GPU, not the processor.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS data shows a clear pattern: this combination struggles across all resolutions, and the GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting component. Looking at the scaling from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the Low preset drops from 50 FPS to 41 FPS, a decline of 9 frames. Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, Low drops from 41 FPS to 30 FPS, another 11 frames. This strong resolution-dependent scaling indicates GPU-bound behavior, as the CPU workload for flight simulation physics and scenery processing does not quadruple with pixel count.

The Medium preset shows the same pattern. At 1920x1080, the average is 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45. At 2560x1440, the average drops to 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 36. At 3840x2160, the average falls to 23 FPS with a range of 20 to 27. The consistent 7 to 9 frame drops per resolution step confirm that the GPU's fill rate and shading capacity are the dominant factors.

The CPU's role is comparatively minor. The Ryzen 5 5500 has six cores, twelve threads, and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16429 and single-core score of 2319 place it well above the level typically needed for flight simulators. Even at 4K Ultra, the system produces 17 FPS, which is not a CPU limitation but a GPU one. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would stay flat across resolutions rather than dropping consistently. The data shows no scenario where CPU performance is the deciding factor; every preset at every resolution is constrained by the Arc B370's low throughput.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this combination at 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 8% of all systems tested. This ranking is consistent with the component-level data: the GPU sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU sits in the 73rd percentile. The combination of a mid-range CPU with a very low-end GPU produces a system that is far below the median for this game.

To contextualize the rank, consider that 3714 combos were tested and 3428 of them performed better. Only 286 combinations were slower. This means the Ryzen 5 5500 and Arc B370 pairing is among the weakest systems in the database for this specific title. The CPU is not the reason for the low rank; if paired with a stronger GPU, the Ryzen 5 5500 could move substantially higher. The Arc B370, however, caps the system's capability so severely that even the CPU's 73rd percentile performance cannot compensate.

The measured FPS data reinforces this ranking. The best average FPS across all resolutions and presets is 50, which is far below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The system never reaches a playable state in any configuration tested, which is a hallmark of bottom-tier rankings. The gap between this combo and even the next tier of GPUs is significant, as the nearest GPU rivals are all over a decade old.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any resolution tested. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the verdict data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best result anywhere is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which still falls 10 FPS short of the threshold.

At 3840x2160, the system produces 30 FPS on Low, 23 FPS on Medium, 18 FPS on High, and 17 FPS on Ultra. These numbers are all far below 60 FPS, and even the minimum FPS recorded at Medium (20 FPS) is not close to playable. At 2560x1440, the situation improves slightly: 41 FPS on Low, 32 FPS on Medium, 24 FPS on High, and 23 FPS on Ultra. Still, no preset reaches 60 FPS. At 1920x1080, the best is 50 FPS on Low, with Medium at 39 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS.

The verdict is unambiguous: for a smooth 60 FPS experience, this hardware is insufficient. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and the sub-60 FPS results across every resolution and preset combination mean that even the most aggressive settings reductions cannot bridge the gap. Users would need to either lower the resolution below 1080p, which was not tested, or upgrade the GPU. The CPU is not the constraint; the Arc B370 is.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the 60 FPS playable threshold, there are no recommended settings at any resolution. The database lists no best settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080 because none of the tested presets reach 60 FPS. However, for users who are willing to accept lower frame rates, the data provides a clear hierarchy of what to choose.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers 30 FPS average, which is the highest recorded at this resolution. Medium drops to 23 FPS, High to 18 FPS, and Ultra to 17 FPS. If the goal is maximum smoothness at 4K, Low is the only reasonable choice, but 30 FPS is still a compromised experience.

At 2560x1440, Low delivers 41 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium drops to 32 FPS, High to 24 FPS, and Ultra to 23 FPS. The 41 FPS on Low is the closest any setting comes to the 60 FPS threshold, but it is still 19 FPS short.

At 1920x1080, Low delivers 50 FPS, the best result in the entire dataset. Medium produces 39 FPS, High produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. The 50 FPS average is the only result within striking distance of 60 FPS, but it remains below the playable threshold. For users who must play on this hardware, 1080p Low is the only sensible setting, and they should expect frame rates in the 40s to 50s during lighter scenes.

The takeaway is clear: none of these settings are playable by the 60 FPS standard. The system is best suited for lower resolutions and reduced detail, but even then, it cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS. Upgrading the GPU should be the priority for anyone considering this combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator.