Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a specific performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its demanding rendering of vast landscapes and complex aircraft models. The recorded data indicates that this combination operates well below the 60 FPS threshold considered playable at all tested resolutions and presets. The following analysis breaks down the measured frame rates, identifies the most viable settings, and contextualizes this hardware pairing within the broader benchmark database.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark data for this combination shows a clear pattern of performance scaling across the three tested resolutions. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution, the average frame rates are consistently low, ranging from 19 FPS to 33 FPS depending on the quality preset. The Low preset delivers an average of 33 FPS, which is notably higher than the Medium preset's 26 FPS average. The High and Ultra presets both settle at a 19 FPS average, indicating that the graphical load at 4K exceeds the capabilities of this hardware, even when lowering settings from High to Ultra yields no measurable average difference. The only preset with min and max frame data at this resolution is Medium, where the frame rate fluctuates between a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS, suggesting some variability in scene complexity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance improves but remains far from the 60 FPS target. The Low preset achieves an average of 45 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 35 FPS with a recorded range of 30 to 40 FPS. The High preset drops to a 26 FPS average, and the Ultra preset is only slightly lower at 25 FPS. This resolution shows a consistent pattern: each step up in quality from Low to Medium to High reduces the average frame rate, but the difference between High and Ultra is minimal, a mere 1 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the most common gaming resolution, the data shows the best results for this combination, though still not reaching playable status. The Low preset averages 56 FPS, coming closest to the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. The High preset averages 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium represents a 13 FPS drop, while the transition from High to Ultra is only a 2 FPS reduction, indicating diminishing returns at the highest quality settings.

Across all resolutions, the performance delta between Low and Ultra settings is significant. At 3840x2160, the difference is 14 FPS (33 to 19). At 2560x1440, it is 20 FPS (45 to 25). At 1920x1080, it is 25 FPS (56 to 31). This suggests that the resolution plays a substantial role in the overall frame rate, with lower resolutions amplifying the impact of settings changes.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the 60 FPS playable threshold, the recorded data shows that no settings combination at any resolution achieves the target. The verdict by resolution confirms this, with no playable settings listed for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Therefore, the "best settings" in this context refers to the most demanding preset that comes closest to 60 FPS, which would be the Low preset at 1920x1080 with its 56 FPS average. This is the only measured configuration within 4 FPS of the threshold.

For 2560x1440, the Low preset at 45 FPS is the closest to playable, but it falls 15 FPS short. At 3840x2160, the Low preset at 33 FPS is the best available, though it is nearly half the target frame rate. In all cases, the database does not record a "best settings" value because the playable threshold is not met, meaning no preset can be recommended as a playable option.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combination achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average frame rate is 56 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low preset.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B390 and Ryzen 5 5600F combination reach 60 FPS at any setting?

A: No, the data shows no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest measurement is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low.

Q: How does performance at 2560x1440 compare to 1920x1080 on the Medium preset?

A: At 2560x1440 Medium, the average is 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the average is 43 FPS with a range of 37 to 50 FPS, an improvement of 8 FPS on average.

Q: What is the performance difference between High and Ultra presets at 3840x2160?

A: The average frame rate is identical at 19 FPS for both High and Ultra presets at 3840x2160, indicating no measurable benefit from the higher preset.

Q: Are there any frame rate minimums recorded for the Low preset?

A: No, the database records minimum and maximum frame rates only for the Medium preset at each resolution. The Low, High, and Ultra presets list only the average frame rate.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: This combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower percentile of systems in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. At 4K, the best average is 33 FPS on Low, which is below the threshold and likely to feel stuttery during dense scenery. At 1440p, the Low preset reaches 45 FPS, still 15 FPS short. At 1080p, the Low preset nearly achieves the target at 56 FPS, but it does not sustain it, and the minimum frame rate is not recorded.

For users who insist on playing at 1080p, the Low preset is the only option that approaches playability, but the 56 FPS average does not guarantee a consistent experience. The Medium preset at 1080p, at 43 FPS, offers a more stable minimum of 37 FPS, but the average is still well below the threshold. The overall assessment is clear: this hardware pairing is not suited for Microsoft Flight Simulator if smooth performance is required.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with a score of 36938 and a delta of 0 percent, the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37018 with a delta of -0.2 percent, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093 with a delta of -0.4 percent, and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112 with a delta of -0.5 percent. These CPUs are within a half percent of the 5600F's average score of 36945, meaning a system with any of these processors would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in this game when paired with the same Intel Arc B390 GPU.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest rivals are all NVIDIA GPUs with significantly lower scores. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463 with a delta of 1.3 percent, the GeForce 800M scores 1460 with a delta of 1.5 percent, the GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446 with a delta of 2.5 percent, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443 with a delta of 2.7 percent. The Arc B390's average benchmark score is 1482, which is only slightly above these older, low-end GPUs. Performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator would be expected to be very similar, with these rivals potentially trailing by a few percent at most, meaning none of them would meaningfully change the overall verdict of unplayability.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F and Intel Arc B390 ranks 3302 out of 3714. This places it in the bottom 11 percent of all tested systems, indicating that the vast majority of other hardware combinations deliver better frame rates in this game. The rank reflects the combined limitations of both components, particularly the GPU, which has a percentile ranking of 9 among all GPUs, indicating it is in the bottom 9 percent of graphics cards in the database. The CPU, by contrast, has a percentile rank of 85, showing it is a relatively capable processor. The bottleneck is clearly the graphics subsystem, as the GPU's low percentile aligns with the observed low frame rates across all resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the Intel Arc B390 GPU is the primary limiter in Microsoft Flight Simulator for this combination. The GPU's percentile of 9 and its average benchmark score of 1482 places it far below the CPU's percentile of 85. The scaling across resolutions supports this: as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, the average frame rate on the Low preset drops from 56 to 33 FPS, a 41 percent reduction. This is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance, where higher pixel counts place greater demand on the graphics processor.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 Low, the 56 FPS average is close to the CPU's potential limit, but the GPU still holds the system back. At 3840x2160, the GPU is so overwhelmed that even the CPU's higher percentile cannot compensate. The settings scaling further illustrates the GPU's dominance: at 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 56 to 31 FPS, a 25 FPS penalty. At 4K, the same settings change only reduces the average from 33 to 19 FPS, a 14 FPS penalty, because the GPU is already saturated at the Low preset.

In summary, the Intel Arc B390 is the decisive component in this pairing. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F provides sufficient processing power, as evidenced by its 85th percentile ranking, but the GPU's performance class is too low to deliver playable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator at any of the tested settings. Users seeking better performance would need to consider a significantly more powerful graphics solution, as the CPU is not the primary constraint in this configuration.