Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and Intel Arc B570 combination delivers a strictly 1080p and 1440p experience for Microsoft Flight Simulator, with 4K remaining out of reach at the playable threshold. Benchmark data shows a clear tiered performance structure: the pairing is fully playable at 1080p Medium, playable at 1440p only on Low settings, and entirely below 60 FPS at 4K across all presets. The measured results follow a predictable pattern where resolution scaling and preset scaling both exert heavy tolls, with the most demanding Ultra preset failing to clear 40 FPS at any tested resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the data shows a narrow band from 28 to 51 FPS across all four presets. The Low preset achieves an average of 51 FPS, which is the only 4K score above 40. Medium drops to 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and maximum of 46 FPS. High falls further to 30 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 28 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is just 23 FPS, indicating that even at 4K the CPU-GPU combo is consistently constrained, with no preset approaching the 60 FPS threshold. The min/max data at Medium shows a 12 FPS fluctuation, suggesting some scene-dependent variance but not enough to push into playable territory.

At 2560x1440, the results improve but remain limited. Low is the only playable preset, hitting 69 FPS on average. Medium averages 54 FPS with a min of 46 FPS and max of 62 FPS — the max touches playability but the average and minimum fall short. High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 15 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 13 FPS. This shows that each preset increase at 1440p removes roughly a quarter of the remaining performance headroom, making Low the only viable option for sustained 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the combo shows its best form. Low averages 86 FPS, which is well above the playable threshold. Medium averages 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS and maximum of 77 FPS — the average clears 60, though the minimum dips slightly below. High averages 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 19 FPS, a significant step, but Medium remains playable on average. The gap between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, suggesting that both high-end presets are GPU-bound at this resolution, whereas the jump from Medium to High costs 17 FPS.

The min/max data pattern is consistent: only Medium presets include min and max values, which appear in the measured pack at all three resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the 57 FPS minimum means occasional dips below 60, but the 67 FPS average provides enough buffer for most flight scenarios. At 1440p Medium, the 46 FPS minimum is well below playable, confirming that the average of 54 FPS does not represent a stable experience. The lack of min/max values for other presets limits deeper variance analysis, but the averages alone establish clear tiering.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS in 4K?

A: No. The best 4K result is 51 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. None of the four presets at 3840x2160 reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings for this resolution.

Q: What is the highest playable preset at 1920x1080?

A: Medium is the best playable settings at 1080p, averaging 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 FPS and maximum of 77 FPS. Low averages 86 FPS, but Medium is the most demanding preset that stays above 60 FPS on average. High and Ultra both fall below 60 FPS, at 50 FPS and 48 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the 1440p performance compare to the 1080p performance?

A: The difference is substantial. At 1440p, only Low settings clear 60 FPS, averaging 69 FPS. At 1080p, both Low and Medium clear 60 FPS on average, with Medium at 67 FPS. The 1440p Medium average of 54 FPS is 13 FPS lower than the 1080p Medium average, showing a significant resolution penalty. The 4K results are further degraded, with 4K Low at 51 FPS being 35 FPS behind 1080p Low.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B570 the bottleneck at 1080p Ultra?

A: The data suggests GPU limitation at the high end. At 1080p, High averages 50 FPS and Ultra averages 48 FPS, a difference of only 2 FPS. This small gap between High and Ultra, contrasted with the 17 FPS gap between Medium and High, indicates that the GPU saturates before the CPU at these presets. The CPU has ample headroom, as evidenced by the 86 FPS Low result, but the GPU cannot push beyond the 50 FPS range at High and Ultra.

Q: What frame rate can users expect at 1440p Medium?

A: The average is 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 FPS and maximum of 62 FPS. While the maximum briefly touches 62 FPS, the average is 6 FPS below the playable threshold, and the minimum is 14 FPS below. This means the experience will feel inconsistent — some scenes will be smooth, but many will drop below 60 FPS, making Medium unsuitable for a locked 60 FPS experience at 1440p.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 20% of tested systems. This low rank reflects the GPU's modest performance relative to other tested graphics cards, despite the CPU's decent standing. The rank is based on combined in-game performance across all tested resolutions and settings.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a shifting balance between CPU and GPU depending on resolution and preset. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average of 86 FPS shows the CPU is capable of driving high frame rates, and the GPU is not yet the limiting factor. However, the rapid decline from Low to Medium (19 FPS drop) and the small gap between High and Ultra (2 FPS drop) indicate the GPU becomes the dominant constraint as preset quality rises. The CPU's 12-thread design and 96 MB of shared L3 cache provide sufficient processing power for the flight simulator's complex physics and world streaming at lower GPU loads.

At 2560x1440, the GPU role becomes more pronounced. The Low preset at 1440p averages 69 FPS, which is 17 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. This 17 FPS penalty from resolution scaling alone, with identical settings, points to the GPU's bandwidth and pixel throughput limitations. The 380.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 160-bit bus width handle the increased pixel count with measurable difficulty. The CPU still contributes, as evidenced by the 69 FPS Low result, but the GPU's pixel rate of 200.0 GPixel/s becomes the ceiling for higher presets.

At 3840x2160, the GPU is almost entirely the constraint. The 4K Low average of 51 FPS is notably close to the 1080p High average of 50 FPS, suggesting that 4K Low places a similar load on the GPU as 1080p High. The 4K Ultra result of 28 FPS is the lowest across all tests, and the gap between 4K Low and 4K High is just 21 FPS, showing that even modest preset increases at 4K push the GPU to its limits. The CPU, with its PassMark single-thread score of 2941, is likely not the bottleneck at 4K — the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 compute is insufficient for the rendering demands.

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K at the same preset shows a consistent pattern: approximately 20-30% performance loss per step up in resolution class. This is consistent with the GPU's memory bandwidth and pixel throughput being the primary limiting factors, rather than the CPU's compute capabilities. The CPU's benchmark scores, including a multithread score of 20363 and physics score of 2282, indicate it can feed the GPU adequately at lower resolutions, but the GPU cannot maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions regardless of CPU headroom.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only within specific resolution and preset boundaries. At 1920x1080, the system is fully playable on Low and Medium settings, with Medium achieving an average of 67 FPS. This is the recommended target for the best visual quality while maintaining 60 FPS on average. High and Ultra at 1080p fall short at 50 FPS and 48 FPS respectively, so users must accept either Medium quality or frame rates in the 48-50 FPS range.

At 2560x1440, the system is playable only on Low settings, which averages 69 FPS. This is a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, but the visual compromise is significant. Medium at 1440p averages 54 FPS, which is below the playable threshold, and High and Ultra average 41 FPS and 39 FPS respectively. Users with 1440p monitors must choose between Low settings for smooth gameplay or higher presets with sub-60 FPS performance.

At 3840x2160, the system cannot reach 60 FPS at any preset. The best result is 51 FPS on Low, with Medium at 40 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings for 4K, confirming that this resolution is not viable for this combination. Users with 4K displays should expect to run the game at lower resolutions or accept consistent sub-60 FPS frame rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS on average. The best available result is Low at 51 FPS, but this falls short of the playable threshold. Users at this resolution must either reduce the resolution or accept frame rates below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, which averages 69 FPS. This provides a 9 FPS buffer above the threshold, but the graphical quality is minimal. Medium at 54 FPS is the next step up, but it does not meet the playable standard.

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that clears 60 FPS is Medium, averaging 67 FPS. This is the optimal balance of visual quality and performance for this resolution. The minimum of 57 FPS means occasional dips below 60, but the average is solidly playable. Low at 86 FPS offers a larger margin but at reduced visual fidelity.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific CPU-GPU combination ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 20% of tested systems, indicating that while it can run the game at playable settings in 1080p and 1440p Low, it is not competitive with higher-performing combinations. The rank reflects the Intel Arc B570's modest performance profile — its PassMark G3D score of 14195 and 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs are below average for modern gaming. The CPU, with an 85th percentile ranking, is relatively stronger, but the GPU holds back the overall in-game result.

The rank of 2988 out of 3714 means that over 80% of tested configurations outperform this combo in this game. This is consistent with the measured FPS data, which shows the system unable to handle 4K at all and limited to Low settings at 1440p. The performance gap to higher-ranked systems is primarily attributable to the GPU's rendering throughput, as the CPU's single-thread score of 2941 is adequate for the game's simulation demands.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has an average benchmark score of 36945, which is 0.2% lower than the 5500X3D's 37018. This means the 5600F would perform nearly identically in this game, with less than a 1% difference in CPU-bound scenarios. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is also within 0.2%, scoring 36938, offering similar CPU performance. On the higher side, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093, which is 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112, 0.3% higher. These four rivals bracket the 5500X3D within a narrow 0.5% performance band, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly indistinguishable frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals show a similar tight grouping. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, which is 0.1% lower than the Arc B570's 20556 average. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, 0.1% higher. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, 0.5% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, 0.4% lower. All four rivals fall within a 0.9% performance band, so any of these GPUs would deliver essentially the same FPS results in Microsoft Flight Simulator at the tested resolutions and settings. Users considering alternatives should expect no meaningful difference in frame rates when swapping to any of these nearby GPUs.

The practical implication is that this combo's performance profile is highly reproducible with any of the listed rival components. A system with a Ryzen 5 5600F and an Arc A750 would produce nearly identical FPS numbers to the tested 5500X3D + B570 configuration, with deltas under 1% in both CPU and GPU benchmark scores. This makes the measured results a reliable proxy for a family of similar hardware combinations.