Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a stark picture for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The recorded data shows a combination that consistently falls short of the 60 FPS playability threshold across all tested resolutions and presets. The database places this pairing at rank 3428 out of 3714 tested combos, indicating that it sits in the lower tier of systems evaluated for this title. The CPU itself is a solid mid-range part with a percentile rank of 75 among all CPUs, but the GPU, which ranks at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, becomes the decisive limiting factor. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance, explores the most viable settings, and contextualizes this hardware within the broader benchmark landscape.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern: this combo struggles at every resolution and preset combination. At 3840x2160, the performance is marginal at best. With Low settings, the average FPS reaches 30, which is exactly half of the 60 FPS target. Medium settings drop the average to 23 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings lower the average further to 18 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 17 FPS average. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, showing that even drastic visual reductions cannot bring the frame rate into a comfortable range.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains far from playable. Low settings produce an average of 41 FPS, which is the highest figure recorded for this resolution. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings yield 24 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 23 FPS average. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 18 FPS, indicating that the GPU is heavily stressed by higher quality presets. The jump from 4K Low to 1440p Low is 11 FPS, showing that resolution scaling does provide meaningful gains, but not enough to reach the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings average 50 FPS, which is the highest average across all tested configurations. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings produce 30 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 28 FPS average. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 22 FPS. Notably, the 1080p Low result of 50 FPS is 9 FPS higher than the 1440p Low result of 41 FPS, and 20 FPS higher than the 4K Low result of 30 FPS. This demonstrates that the Arc B370 is extremely sensitive to resolution scaling, likely due to its limited pixel throughput and shared memory architecture.

The minimum and maximum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS, a spread of 7 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS, a spread of 9 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS, a spread of 12 FPS. The wider range at lower resolutions suggests that CPU performance becomes more relevant when the GPU is less saturated, but the overall averages remain too low for smooth gameplay.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict data is clear: no settings combination at any resolution achieves an average of 60 FPS. The database lists playable settings as empty arrays for all three resolutions, meaning there is no preset that meets the playability threshold. The best average FPS at each resolution is as follows: at 3840x2160, Low settings provide 30 FPS; at 2560x1440, Low settings provide 41 FPS; at 1920x1080, Low settings provide 50 FPS. Even the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist, so the question of best settings becomes a matter of choosing the least poor option.

For users who must run this game on this hardware, the data suggests that Low settings are the only reasonable choice at any resolution. The difference between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS (50 vs 39), which is substantial. At 1440p, the difference is 9 FPS (41 vs 32). At 4K, the difference is 7 FPS (30 vs 23). The step from Medium to High costs another 9 FPS at 1080p, 8 FPS at 1440p, and 5 FPS at 4K. The step from High to Ultra is smaller, costing 2 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 1 FPS at 4K. This indicates that the GPU is already near its limits at Medium settings, and the diminishing returns from High to Ultra are minimal.

Given that the highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, there is no configuration that provides a smooth experience. The data implies that users would need to consider external frame rate limiting or dynamic resolution scaling, though those are not part of the measured metrics.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3428 out of 3714 places this pairing in the bottom 8% of tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a very low ranking, and it aligns with the GPU's 5th percentile performance among all GPUs. The CPU's 75th percentile ranking does not compensate for the GPU's weak showing. The benchmark results show that the Arc B370 only has one recorded 3DMark test, a Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. This is an extremely low score, indicating that the GPU is designed for basic tasks rather than demanding 3D rendering.

The nearest rival GPUs in the database are all older or lower-end parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370. 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, which is 1.4% lower. These deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning the Arc B370 performs essentially on par with a decade-old desktop GPU or a mid-range mobile GPU from the early 2010s. This explains why the FPS figures are so low for a 2020 flight simulator.

The CPU side also has nearest rivals that are close in average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800H scores 21749, which is 0.1% higher than the 5600X's 21771. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U scores 21874, 0.5% higher. The Intel Core i7-11700 scores 21891, 0.5% higher. The AMD EPYC 9554P scores 21899, 0.6% higher. These deltas are tiny, indicating that the 5600X is a well-balanced mid-range CPU. However, this CPU performance does not translate into playable frame rates because the GPU is the bottleneck.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the GPU, the nearest rivals indicate that any of these parts would produce nearly identical performance in this game. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 is a desktop card from 2009, and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 is a laptop part from 2010. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M is another laptop GPU from 2012, and the AMD FirePro M2000 is a workstation card from 2012. All of these have 3DMark Steel Nomad scores within 1.5% of the Arc B370. In practical terms, swapping the Arc B370 for any of these would result in similar FPS numbers in Microsoft Flight Simulator, likely still hovering around 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all close in average benchmark score. The Ryzen 7 4800H is a mobile processor, the Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U is a low-power mobile chip, the Core i7-11700 is a desktop part, and the EPYC 9554P is a server processor. The 5600X sits between these in terms of raw multi-threaded performance, but the differences are negligible, under 1% in all cases. In this game, the CPU is not the limiting factor, so using any of these alternatives would not change the FPS outcome as long as the Arc B370 remains the GPU.

The data suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint. Users with this CPU but a stronger GPU would see dramatically better performance, while users with this GPU but a weaker CPU would likely see similar results, assuming the CPU can feed the GPU adequately.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded FPS scaling across resolutions reveals which component matters more. At 1080p Low, the average is 50 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 41 FPS, a 18% decrease. At 4K Low, it drops to 30 FPS, a 40% decrease from 1440p and a 40% decrease from 1080p. This steep decline indicates that the GPU is heavily resolution-bound. The Arc B370 has a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, which are low figures for modern standards. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning it uses shared system memory, which further limits performance at higher resolutions.

At 1080p Medium, the average is 39 FPS, compared to 50 FPS at Low. The 11 FPS drop from Low to Medium at 1080p is larger than the 9 FPS drop at 1440p and the 7 FPS drop at 4K. This suggests that at lower resolutions, the GPU has more headroom to be affected by preset changes, but it still cannot reach 60 FPS. The CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, is likely sufficient for this game's CPU demands. The single-threaded performance is strong, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 917 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1541. However, the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance is simply too low to handle the rendering load.

The data implies that this game is heavily GPU-bound for this combo. The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and lower presets, where the GPU is less saturated. At 1080p Low, the 50 FPS average is likely limited by the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth, not the CPU. The fact that the minimum FPS values are only recorded for Medium settings, and they are relatively close to the averages, suggests that there are no severe CPU bottleneck stutters. Instead, the frame rate is consistently low across the board.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The verdict data shows that no settings combination at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080 achieves an average of 60 FPS. The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve?

A: The best average FPS is 50, recorded at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 1440p Low, the average is 41 FPS, and at 4K Low, it is 30 FPS.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168. All deltas are within 1.5%.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 75th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, indicating GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the combo rank in the database for this game?

A: This combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of systems.

Q: What settings are recommended for this hardware?

A: The data shows that Low settings provide the highest average FPS at every resolution. Medium settings cost 7 to 11 FPS depending on resolution, and High and Ultra settings drop below 30 FPS at all resolutions.

The Verdict

The answer is no, this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the verdict by resolution shows empty playable settings arrays for all three resolutions. At 3840x2160, the best average is 30 FPS on Low settings. At 2560x1440, the best average is 41 FPS on Low settings. At 1920x1080, the best average is 50 FPS on Low settings. None of these reach the 60 FPS target.

The database records this combo as rank 3428 out of 3714, which is a clear indicator of poor suitability for this game. The Intel Arc B370, despite being a recent release with a 2026 date, performs at the level of GPUs from over a decade ago. Its 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its 3DMark score of 1184 place it firmly in entry-level territory. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a capable CPU, but it cannot overcome the GPU's limitations.

For users with this hardware, the only option is to run at 1080p with Low settings, accepting a 50 FPS average that will still have noticeable dips below 60 FPS. Even then, the experience will not be smooth by modern standards. Upgrading the GPU would be the only viable path toward playable frame rates, as the CPU is not the bottleneck. The data is unambiguous: this pairing is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator.