Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 combined with the Intel Arc B390 lands at rank 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this pairing in the bottom 11 percent of all recorded configurations, a position that reflects a severe imbalance: the CPU is a solid mid-range desktop part, while the GPU is an integrated-class solution that drags the entire experience down. In the database's overall GPU percentile, the Arc B390 sits at just the 9th percentile, meaning roughly nine out of ten tested graphics processors outperform it. Its average benchmark score of 1482 places it in direct competition with legacy entry-level parts, with the nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at a 1.3 percent higher score. The GeForce 800M trails by 1.5 percent, the GT 625 OEM by 2.5 percent, and the GT 710 by 2.7 percent. This is not a GPU designed for modern flight simulation workloads, and the ranking reflects that clearly.

The CPU tells a different story. The Ryzen 5 5500 sits at the 73rd percentile among all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 19593. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 at 19617, which is only 0.1 percent ahead, and the Intel Core i5-12500 at 19668, which is 0.4 percent ahead. The Intel Core i7-10700F trails by 0.5 percent, and the Intel Core i5-11600KF leads by 0.7 percent. This is a tightly clustered group, and the Ryzen 5 5500 is right in the middle of it. In multi-threaded workloads, the CPU demonstrates its capability with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16429 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 7976. Single-thread performance is more modest, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2319 and a Geekbench single-core score of 1730. For a flight simulator that relies heavily on both CPU simulation logic and GPU rendering, the processor is not the bottleneck in this pairing; the graphics subsystem is.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p with playable frame rates?

A: No. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the measured average FPS is 56, which falls below the playable threshold of 60 FPS. Medium settings drop the average to 43 FPS, High to 33 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. No settings preset at 1080p clears the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best playable settings preset for this combo at any resolution?

A: There is no playable settings preset at any resolution. The verdict data shows empty playableSettings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The highest average FPS recorded across all tests is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which still misses the 60 FPS target by 4 FPS.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 5500 has an average benchmark score of 19593. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 scores 19617, a 0.1 percent difference. The Intel Core i5-12500 scores 19668, which is 0.4 percent higher. The Intel Core i7-10700F scores 19499, sitting 0.5 percent below, and the Intel Core i5-11600KF scores 19723, leading by 0.7 percent. These are all closely matched parts.

Q: What is the GPU's performance tier based on recorded benchmarks?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482 and sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463, which is 1.3 percent lower. All four nearest rivals are legacy NVIDIA parts from the GT 600 and 800 series.

Q: Does increasing resolution or settings have a predictable effect on frame rates?

A: Yes. The data shows a consistent pattern. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at the same settings reduces average FPS by roughly 20 percent. For example, Low settings go from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, and Medium goes from 43 FPS to 35 FPS. At 4K, the drops are more severe. Low settings at 3840x2160 produce 33 FPS, which is 41 percent lower than the same settings at 1080p.

Q: What is the frame rate range at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. At 2560x1440 Medium, the average drops to 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. At 3840x2160 Medium, the average is 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware combination reveals a distinct pattern: the GPU is the limiting factor at every resolution and preset, but the CPU is more than capable of feeding it. The Ryzen 5 5500 is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 3 processor with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its benchmark scores, particularly the Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 16429 and the 3DMark 16-thread score of 5386, indicate that it can handle the simulation and physics workloads of a flight simulator without breaking a sweat. The CPU's single-thread performance, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 836 and a PassMark single-thread score of 3058, is adequate for the game's main thread.

The GPU, however, is an integrated graphics solution. The Intel Arc B390 is based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. Its FP32 performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s. These specifications, while not insignificant for an integrated part, are nowhere near what a dedicated graphics card would offer for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the company of much older, low-end discrete GPUs.

The scaling data confirms this imbalance. At 1920x1080, going from Low to Ultra settings reduces the average FPS from 56 to 31, a 45 percent drop. The same settings change at 2560x1440 brings the average from 45 FPS down to 25 FPS, a 44 percent drop. At 3840x2160, Low produces 33 FPS and Ultra produces 19 FPS, a 42 percent drop. The relative consistency of this scaling across resolutions indicates that the GPU is the dominant constraint; if the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see more significant frame rate differences when changing resolution at the same settings.

Resolution scaling tells the same story. At Low settings, dropping from 1080p to 1440p costs 11 FPS (56 to 45), and dropping from 1440p to 4K costs another 12 FPS (45 to 33). At Medium settings, the drops are 8 FPS (43 to 35) and 9 FPS (35 to 26). These are substantial reductions that point directly at the GPU's fill rate and compute capabilities. The CPU is not the limiting factor here. A stronger GPU paired with this same Ryzen 5 5500 would produce significantly higher frame rates across all resolutions and presets.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any resolution or any settings preset. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the recorded data shows that this combination never reaches that mark. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56, which is 4 FPS short of the target. Every other preset at every resolution falls further behind. The verdict data is unambiguous: the playableSettings arrays are empty for all three tested resolutions, meaning there is no configuration that clears the 60 FPS bar.

For 3840x2160, the best recorded average is 33 FPS at Low settings. High and Ultra both produce 19 FPS, while Medium sits at 26 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 45 FPS, Medium 35 FPS, High 26 FPS, and Ultra 25 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS, Medium 43 FPS, High 33 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. None of these numbers approach the 60 FPS threshold. The system is playable in the sense that the game will launch and render, but it will not deliver a smooth experience. Users who require 60 FPS will need to either lower the resolution below 1080p (which was not tested in this dataset) or upgrade the graphics solution. The CPU is not the problem; the Intel Arc B390 is simply too weak for this workload.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for this combination are recorded across three resolutions and four settings presets. All values are averages unless otherwise noted, with minimum and maximum figures provided only for Medium settings.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is achieved at Low settings with 33 FPS. Medium settings produce 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. High settings drop to 19 FPS, and Ultra settings also produce 19 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is also 7 FPS. High and Ultra are effectively identical in performance.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 45 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings yield 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings drop to 26 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 25 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, while the difference between Medium and High is 9 FPS. High and Ultra are nearly indistinguishable, with only a 1 FPS gap.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS, the highest average FPS recorded for this combination across all tests. Medium settings yield 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High settings drop to 33 FPS, and Ultra settings produce 31 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, from Medium to High is 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 2 FPS. The frame rate ranges at Medium settings show that even the maximum recorded value of 50 FPS at 1080p falls short of the 60 FPS threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the 60 FPS playable threshold, there is no settings preset at any resolution that meets the target. The verdict data confirms this with empty playableSettings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. However, for users who are willing to accept lower frame rates, the best performing presets are clear.

At 3840x2160, Low settings provide the highest average FPS at 33 FPS. This is 27 FPS below the playable threshold. The next best option is Medium at 26 FPS, followed by High and Ultra both at 19 FPS. At this resolution, Low settings are the only reasonable choice if the goal is to maximize frame rate, though the experience will still be well below smooth.

At 2560x1440, Low settings again provide the best average at 45 FPS. Medium settings follow at 35 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. The 45 FPS average at Low settings is 15 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, Medium settings offer a more balanced experience with a minimum of 30 FPS, though this still falls short of the threshold.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS, which is the closest any preset comes to the 60 FPS target. Medium settings yield 43 FPS, High 33 FPS, and Ultra 31 FPS. The 56 FPS average at Low settings is only 4 FPS below the threshold, but it is still not playable by the defined standard. Users who must play at this resolution should use Low settings to get the best possible frame rate, and they should expect occasional dips below the average. The Medium preset, with its minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS, provides a more stable frame time experience but at a lower overall average. There is no preset that delivers a consistent 60 FPS experience, and the database verdict reflects that reality.