Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: Can this AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and Intel Arc B370 combination run Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at any resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The verdict field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves?

A: 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This falls 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How much does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: Where does this combo rank among tested systems for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom percentile of the database. This indicates it performs below the vast majority of tested hardware for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What is the CPU's performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D has an average benchmark score of 37018. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36945, a 0.2% difference. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, also a 0.2% difference. The Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, a 0.3% difference.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B370 a discrete GPU or integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of "IGP" and a bus interface of "IGP". Its memory is system shared, and its TDP is 25 W.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a scenario where the Intel Arc B370 is the overwhelming performance bottleneck. The CPU, AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, is a 6-core, 12-thread processor with a 96 MB shared L3 cache and a PassMark multithread score of 20363. It ranks in the 85th percentile against all CPUs, which indicates it is a capable processor. However, the GPU's percentile ranking against all GPUs is only 5th percentile, meaning it sits near the bottom of the database's GPU performance distribution.

The scaling behavior across resolutions reinforces this. At 3840x2160, the average FPS at Low settings is 30. At 2560x1440 Low, it is 41. At 1920x1080 Low, it is 50. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-limited workload: as the pixel count decreases, performance improves substantially. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS deltas between resolutions would be much smaller, because the CPU workload per frame does not scale with resolution the way GPU rasterization load does.

Preset scaling further supports the GPU-bound interpretation. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average from 50 to 39 FPS, a drop of 11 FPS. Moving from Medium to High reduces it from 39 to 30 FPS, another 9 FPS drop. High to Ultra drops from 30 to 28 FPS. Similar patterns appear at 2560x1440: Low at 41, Medium at 32, High at 24, Ultra at 23. At 3840x2160: Low at 30, Medium at 23, High at 18, Ultra at 17. These consistent reductions with each preset step indicate that the graphics workload, which is handled by the GPU, is what governs frame rates.

The GPU's specifications explain this. The Intel Arc B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS. The memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, which means performance can vary based on the host system's memory configuration. For a flight simulator that streams large amounts of terrain and scenery data, this shared memory arrangement is a significant constraint. The GPU's pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. These are modest figures for 4K rendering.

The CPU side of the equation is comparatively strong. The Ryzen 5 5500X3D has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, a base clock of 3.00 GHz, and a PassMark single-thread score of 2941. Its physics score is 2282, and its floating point math score is 34511. These are solid numbers for simulation workloads, which often rely on single-thread performance. The data indicates that at every resolution and preset, the frame rate is being constrained by the GPU, not the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS at Low settings would not rise so steeply as resolution drops.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database contains measured FPS data for three resolutions and four settings presets each. The 1920x1080 measurements show the highest performance of any resolution. At Low settings, the average FPS is 50. At Medium settings, the average drops to 39, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. At High settings, the average is 30. At Ultra settings, the average is 28. No minimum or maximum values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the averages are lower across the board. Low settings produce an average of 41 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings produce an average of 24 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 23 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded minimum and maximum values.

At 3840x2160, the averages fall further. Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS. Medium settings produce an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings produce an average of 18 FPS. Ultra settings produce an average of 17 FPS. Again, only the Medium preset has recorded minimum and maximum values.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: the gap between Low and Medium is the largest step, while the gap between High and Ultra is the smallest. At 1920x1080, the Low to Medium drop is 11 FPS, and the High to Ultra drop is only 2 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low to Medium drop is 9 FPS, and the High to Ultra drop is 1 FPS. At 3840x2160, the Low to Medium drop is 7 FPS, and the High to Ultra drop is 1 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset adds relatively little additional load over High for this hardware, or that the GPU is already so saturated at High that the incremental cost of Ultra is minimal.

None of the recorded averages reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 Low. The data shows a system that is consistently below playable performance, with the best case falling 10 FPS short of the threshold.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D are tightly clustered. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an average score of 36945, a 0.2% difference from the 5500X3D's 37018. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 also scores 36938, a 0.2% difference. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, a 0.2% difference, and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, a 0.3% difference. In practical terms, swapping the 5500X3D for any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the differences are all within a fraction of a percent.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc B370 are all much older or lower-tier graphics parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a 0.2% difference. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a 0.5% difference. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a 0.7% difference. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, a 1.4% difference. These are all extremely close scores, meaning the Arc B370's performance profile is essentially equivalent to these legacy parts in the recorded benchmark. None of these GPUs would be expected to deliver playable performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator at modern settings, and the measured FPS data confirms this expectation.

For a user looking at this combo, the CPU is not the limiting factor. A different CPU from the same performance tier would not change the outcome. The GPU is where the performance ceiling sits, and the nearest GPU rivals are all in the same low performance band. The data suggests that any system built around this GPU class will face the same fundamental limitation in this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator is 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations. This places the system in the bottom 7.7% of all tested hardware configurations for this game. The rank reflects the combined result of the CPU and GPU working together, and the GPU's low percentile ranking (5th percentile against all GPUs) dominates the outcome.

The CPU's 85th percentile ranking against all CPUs shows that the processor itself is not the issue. A system with this CPU and a higher-performing GPU would rank substantially better. The data indicates that the Intel Arc B370, with its system shared memory and 25 W TDP, is not suited for a demanding flight simulator at high resolutions. The ranking of 3428 out of 3714 is a strong signal that this combination is far below what the game requires for a smooth experience.

The Verdict

The verdict from the database is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any resolution or setting. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and no recorded configuration reaches it. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

The best case scenario is 1920x1080 with Low settings, producing an average of 50 FPS. This is 10 FPS below the threshold. At 2560x1440, the best case is 41 FPS at Low settings. At 3840x2160, the best case is 30 FPS at Low settings. None of these come close to the 60 FPS target.

For users with a 60 Hz display, this system will exhibit visible stuttering and frame pacing issues even at the lowest settings. The Medium preset, which is often a reasonable compromise for weaker hardware, produces 39 FPS at 1920x1080, 32 FPS at 2560x1440, and 23 FPS at 3840x2160. These numbers are all well below the playable threshold.

The verdict is that this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU is the limiting factor, and no amount of setting adjustment within the tested presets can bring the frame rate up to 60 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database does not record any settings preset that achieves 60 FPS or higher at any resolution. Therefore, there is no "best settings" recommendation that meets the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that comes closest to 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 50 FPS. This is the highest average recorded for this combo in the entire dataset. However, it still falls short of the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best recorded average is 41 FPS at Low settings. At 3840x2160, the best recorded average is 30 FPS at Low settings. The Medium preset at each resolution yields 39 FPS, 32 FPS, and 23 FPS respectively, all with recorded minimums ranging from 20 to 33 FPS, which indicates significant frame dips during demanding scenes.

Since no preset meets the 60 FPS threshold, the database provides no best settings recommendation for any resolution. Users seeking playable performance would need to consider lower resolutions beyond the tested range, reduced render scaling, or entirely different hardware. The data as recorded shows that this combination is below the playable threshold across the board.