Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for this combination is straightforward: none of the tested presets reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution. The verdict fields confirm that no playable settings exist for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, and the best settings entry is empty for each.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that comes closest to playability is Low, with an average of 30 FPS. Medium trails at 23 FPS, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. Since 30 FPS is exactly half of the 60 FPS target, even the lowest preset leaves a substantial gap.

At 2560x1440, Low again delivers the highest average at 41 FPS. Medium produces 32 FPS, High drops to 24 FPS, and Ultra sits at 23 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is a 9 FPS loss, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

At 1920x1080, Low reaches 50 FPS, which is the best result across all resolutions and settings in this dataset. Medium follows at 39 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, the largest single-setting drop in the entire measurement set.

The practical takeaway: if you must run this game with this hardware, choose Low settings at 1080p for the smoothest experience. Expect roughly 50 FPS on average, with the understanding that dips below 60 FPS will occur. No preset at any resolution achieves the 60 FPS threshold, so the database classifies this combo as unplayable across the board.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling pattern across resolutions reveals which component limits performance. In a GPU-bound scenario, lowering resolution typically yields large FPS gains because the graphics card has fewer pixels to process. In a CPU-bound scenario, resolution changes have minimal impact because the processor is the bottleneck.

Looking at the Low preset: 3840x2160 delivers 30 FPS, 2560x1440 delivers 41 FPS, and 1920x1080 delivers 50 FPS. That is a 67% improvement from 4K to 1080p. This substantial scaling indicates the GPU (Intel Arc B370) is the primary constraint at Low settings. The integrated-class graphics solution simply cannot push enough pixels at higher resolutions.

At Medium settings, the progression is 23 FPS at 4K, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 39 FPS at 1080p. The relative gains are smaller in absolute terms but still present, confirming GPU dominance. The CPU (AMD Ryzen 5 5600G) has enough headroom to feed the graphics unit at these framerates.

The High preset shows 18 FPS at 4K, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 1080p. Ultra follows a similar pattern: 17, 23, and 28 FPS respectively. The consistent scaling across all presets suggests the GPU remains the bottleneck throughout. The CPU's six cores and twelve threads are sufficient for the simulation's demands at these low framerates.

However, the CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing the 1440p to 1080p deltas. At Low, the jump is 9 FPS; at Medium, it is 7 FPS; at High, 6 FPS; at Ultra, 5 FPS. The shrinking gains as settings increase indicate that the CPU begins to matter more when the GPU is heavily loaded, though it never fully becomes the limiting factor.

The Ryzen 5 5600G's integrated Radeon Vega 7 is not used here; the Intel Arc B370 is the graphics solution. The data shows that this GPU, with its system-shared memory and 25 W TDP, is the clear performance ceiling. The CPU's 74th percentile ranking among all tested processors contrasts sharply with the GPU's 5th percentile, reinforcing that the graphics side holds back the entire system.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the Ryzen 5 5600G near several other processors based on average benchmark scores. The Intel Core i3-1220P scores 21066, which is 0.1% below the AMD chip's 21088 average. The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V scores 21112, 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 7530U scores 21133, 0.2% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155U scores 21174, 0.4% higher.

For practical purposes, these four CPUs would deliver nearly identical performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU. The differences are within measurement noise. If you have any of these processors, expect the same 50 FPS ceiling at 1080p Low.

The Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals tell a more striking story. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, just 0.2% above the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower.

These are all older, low-end graphics solutions from a different era. The Arc B370, despite being a newer architecture (Xe3-LPG on a 3 nm process), lands in the same performance class as these legacy parts in this particular benchmark. For Flight Simulator, pairing the Ryzen 5 5600G with any of these GPUs would produce similar results: unplayable at 60 FPS, with the best case around 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

The GPU's 5th percentile ranking among all tested GPUs confirms its position at the bottom of the performance hierarchy. The CPU, at 74th percentile, has ample room to work with a stronger graphics card, but this specific pairing creates a severe GPU bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations in the database. The rank reflects the GPU's limitations more than the CPU's capabilities.

To contextualize: the Ryzen 5 5600G alone sits at the 74th percentile among CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly three-quarters of all processors in general benchmarks. The Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among GPUs, meaning it outperforms only 5% of graphics solutions. When these two are combined, the overall ranking is dragged down by the graphics side.

The data suggests that swapping the Arc B370 for virtually any more capable GPU would dramatically improve the combo's rank, since the CPU has demonstrated it can handle higher framerates. Conversely, keeping the Arc B370 and upgrading the CPU would yield minimal gains, as the GPU would still cap performance.

For Flight Simulator specifically, this rank indicates the combo is unsuitable for the 60 FPS target at any resolution. The game is demanding, and this hardware sits far below the required performance level. Users with this configuration should consider it a last-resort option for very low settings and modest resolutions, or plan a GPU upgrade as the first priority.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The database shows no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average FPS recorded is 50 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best settings preset for 1080p?

A: Low settings at 1920x1080 produce the highest average FPS of 50. Medium drops to 39 FPS, High to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS. None reach the playable threshold, but Low is the least unplayable option.

Q: Is 4K possible with this hardware?

A: Technically yes, but practically no. At 3840x2160, Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. All fall far short of 60 FPS.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck?

A: The Intel Arc B370 GPU is the clear bottleneck. The CPU ranks at the 74th percentile among all processors, while the GPU ranks at the 5th percentile. Resolution scaling shows consistent FPS gains when lowering resolution, which indicates GPU limitation.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad test. 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). Performance is essentially identical across this group.

Q: Would upgrading the CPU help?

A: No significant improvement would result. The Ryzen 5 5600G's nearest rivals (Intel Core i3-1220P, Intel Core Ultra 7 256V, AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, Intel Core Ultra 7 155U) all score within 0.4% of it. The GPU would still limit performance regardless of which of these CPUs is installed.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K)

| Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| Low | 30 | - | - |

| Medium | 23 | 20 | 27 |

| High | 18 | - | - |

| Ultra | 17 | - | - |

At 4K, the spread from Low to Ultra is 13 FPS. The Medium preset includes recorded minimum and maximum values of 20 and 27 FPS respectively, showing a relatively tight frame time distribution. The other presets lack min/max data but the averages alone demonstrate sub-60 FPS performance across the board.

2560x1440 (1440p)

| Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| Low | 41 | - | - |

| Medium | 32 | 27 | 36 |

| High | 24 | - | - |

| Ultra | 23 | - | - |

At 1440p, Low improves to 41 FPS, a 37% gain over 4K. Medium shows a 27 to 36 FPS range. The gap between High and Ultra narrows to just 1 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset offers no meaningful visual benefit for the performance cost at this resolution.

1920x1080 (1080p)

| Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| Low | 50 | - | - |

| Medium | 39 | 33 | 45 |

| High | 30 | - | - |

| Ultra | 28 | - | - |

At 1080p, Low reaches 50 FPS, the highest recorded value for this combo. Medium maintains a 33 to 45 FPS range. High and Ultra sit at 30 and 28 FPS respectively. The 11 FPS drop from Low to Medium is the largest single-setting penalty in the dataset, suggesting that the Medium preset introduces significant additional GPU load relative to Low.

The overall pattern is consistent: this hardware cannot sustain 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator under any tested configuration. The best case scenario is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, and every other setting or resolution produces lower averages. Users seeking playable framerates would need to consider either a more powerful discrete GPU or a different game entirely.