Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a demanding workload for this combination of an AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and an Intel Arc B390. The recorded frame rates show a clear pattern: this system struggles to reach smooth gameplay at most settings, with only the lowest preset at 1080p approaching acceptable performance.

At 3840x2160, the data reveals severe limitations. High settings produce an average of 19 FPS, while Ultra settings also register 19 FPS. Medium settings improve the average to 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. Low settings provide the best result at this resolution, reaching 33 FPS on average. None of these figures come close to the 60 FPS playability threshold, and even the minimum frame rates remain far below what would be considered smooth.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains inadequate. Low settings deliver 45 FPS on average, which is the highest recorded value at this resolution. Medium settings produce 35 FPS on average, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High settings drop to 26 FPS, and Ultra settings fall further to 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra settings at this resolution is 20 FPS, indicating that visual quality adjustments have a substantial impact on performance.

At 1920x1080, the system performs at its best, though still below the playability threshold. Low settings achieve 56 FPS on average, the highest frame rate recorded in any configuration. Medium settings reach 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings produce 33 FPS, and Ultra settings deliver 31 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 25 FPS, showing that the most demanding preset costs roughly 45% of the performance available at the lowest settings.

The scaling across resolutions follows an expected pattern. At each settings level, dropping from 4K to 1440p improves performance by roughly 35% to 40%. Dropping from 1440p to 1080p provides a further improvement of about 25% to 30%. For example, Medium settings at 4K average 26 FPS, at 1440p average 35 FPS, and at 1080p average 43 FPS. This consistent scaling suggests that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as frame rates respond predictably to changes in rendering resolution.

Minimum frame rates were only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution. At 4K, the minimum is 22 FPS. At 1440p, the minimum rises to 30 FPS. At 1080p, the minimum reaches 37 FPS. These minimums indicate that even the smoother moments of gameplay remain below the playability threshold, and the absence of recorded minimums for other presets suggests that stuttering may be more pronounced at higher settings.

# Best Settings per Resolution

Determining the best settings requires identifying the most demanding preset that maintains an average of at least 60 FPS. The recorded data shows that no configuration in this test achieves this threshold.

At 3840x2160, the best recorded performance is 33 FPS on Low settings. Even this most conservative preset falls 27 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. Medium settings at this resolution provide 26 FPS, High provides 19 FPS, and Ultra provides 19 FPS. None of these options deliver playable performance.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 45 FPS, which is the closest any preset comes to 60 FPS at this resolution. The shortfall is 15 FPS. Medium settings deliver 35 FPS, High delivers 26 FPS, and Ultra delivers 25 FPS. The data indicates that users would need to accept significant visual compromises and still fall short of smooth gameplay.

At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 56 FPS, just 4 FPS below the playability threshold. This is the best performance recorded in the entire dataset. Medium settings reach 43 FPS, High reaches 33 FPS, and Ultra reaches 31 FPS. The 56 FPS result on Low is tantalizingly close to 60 FPS, but it does not clear the bar.

The verdict data confirms this analysis, listing no playable settings for any resolution. The best settings per resolution field shows null values throughout, indicating that the system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any tested configuration. For users seeking the smoothest experience, Low settings at 1080p is the only viable option, and even that requires accepting a frame rate below the standard playability threshold.

# CPU and GPU Roles

Understanding which component limits performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator requires examining how frame rates scale with resolution and settings. The data provides strong evidence that the Intel Arc B390 GPU is the dominant constraint.

The resolution scaling pattern is particularly revealing. At Low settings, frame rates progress from 33 FPS at 4K to 45 FPS at 1440p to 56 FPS at 1080p. This represents a 70% improvement when moving from 4K to 1080p. At Medium settings, the progression goes from 26 FPS at 4K to 35 FPS at 1440p to 43 FPS at 1080p, a 65% improvement. At High settings, the progression goes from 19 FPS at 4K to 26 FPS at 1440p to 33 FPS at 1080p, a 74% improvement.

If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, reducing resolution would yield diminishing returns once the CPU reached its limit. The data shows no such plateau. Frame rates continue to rise consistently as resolution drops, indicating that the GPU is doing the heavy lifting and remains the limiting factor even at 1080p.

The settings scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS (from 56 to 43). Moving from Medium to High costs 10 FPS (from 43 to 33). Moving from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS (from 33 to 31). The diminishing returns at the high end suggest that Ultra settings introduce effects that tax the GPU heavily without proportional visual benefit, or that other bottlenecks emerge at very high settings.

The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 5 5600X with 6 cores and 12 threads, shows strong synthetic benchmark results. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 11838, and its single-core score is 1541. The PassMark multithread score is 21858, with a single-thread score of 3364. These results place the CPU at the 75th percentile among all tested CPUs, suggesting it is a capable processor for gaming workloads.

The GPU, by contrast, shows extremely limited performance. Its average benchmark score is 1482, placing it at the 9th percentile among all tested GPUs. The only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 1482. The GPU's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, both of which are entry-level parts from previous generations.

The disparity between CPU and GPU capability explains the observed performance pattern. The CPU has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU at all tested settings, but the GPU simply cannot render Microsoft Flight Simulator's complex scenes fast enough to reach 60 FPS. The flight simulator is known for its demanding graphics workload, and this GPU configuration lacks the raw throughput needed for smooth performance.

At 4K resolution, the GPU is overwhelmed regardless of settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 14 FPS (33 versus 19), suggesting that even at Low settings, the GPU is working near its maximum capacity. The resolution itself, not the visual quality settings, is the primary constraint at 4K.

At 1080p, the settings have a larger impact, with a 25 FPS difference between Low and Ultra. This indicates that at lower resolutions, the GPU has some headroom to respond to settings changes, though it still cannot reach 60 FPS even at Low. The CPU's role becomes relatively more important at 1080p, but the GPU remains the limiting factor.

# Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU provides context for understanding where this combination sits in the broader hardware landscape.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X has an average benchmark score of 21771. Its closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H with an average score of 21749, representing a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U scores 21874, which is 0.5% higher. The Intel Core i7-11700 also scores 21891, 0.5% higher. The AMD EPYC 9554P completes the group with a score of 21899, 0.6% higher.

These rivals are effectively performance equals for the CPU. A system using any of these processors would likely show nearly identical frame rates in CPU-limited scenarios. However, since the data indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the choice among these CPUs would have minimal impact on the observed performance.

The Intel Arc B390 presents a more challenging comparison. Its average benchmark score is 1482, placing it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which scores 1463 and is 1.3% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% slower.

These rival GPUs are all extremely low-performance parts. The GT 710, for example, is a basic display adapter from a previous generation. The fact that the Arc B390 sits alongside these parts in the benchmark database underscores its limited gaming capability. Any of these GPUs would likely produce similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, all falling well short of the 60 FPS threshold.

The combination of a mid-range CPU with a very low-end GPU creates an imbalanced system. The CPU ranks at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. This imbalance explains why the system's overall rank in this game is 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations. The CPU is not the problem; the GPU simply cannot handle the game's rendering demands.

For users considering alternative configurations, the data suggests that upgrading the GPU would provide the greatest performance improvement. The CPU has demonstrated it can achieve strong results in synthetic benchmarks and is unlikely to bottleneck any reasonable GPU upgrade in this game. A system with this CPU and a more capable GPU would likely show dramatically better frame rates.

# FAQ

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

A: No. The recorded data shows no configuration that reaches 60 FPS. The best result is 56 FPS on Low settings at 1920x1080. The verdict data confirms no playable settings at any resolution.

Q: What is the best performing settings combination for this system?

A: Low settings at 1920x1080 produces the highest average frame rate of 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that comes close to the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463, the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1460, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1443. These parts are all within 2.7% of the Arc B390's performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. Frame rates scale consistently with resolution, improving by 65% to 74% when moving from 4K to 1080p. The CPU ranks at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks at the 9th percentile.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: Low settings average 56 FPS, while Ultra settings average 31 FPS. This represents a 25 FPS difference, with Ultra delivering roughly 45% lower performance than Low.

Q: How does this system rank among all tested combinations in this game?

A: The system ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations. This places it in the lower portion of the database, consistent with its GPU performance limitations.

# The Verdict

The question of whether this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator requires a nuanced answer. Based on the recorded data, the system cannot achieve 60 FPS at any resolution or settings combination tested. The verdict data explicitly lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

At 3840x2160, the best possible result is 33 FPS on Low settings. This is far below the playability threshold and would result in a visibly stuttering experience. Medium settings drop to 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra settings produce only 19 FPS. None of these configurations would provide an enjoyable flight simulation experience.

At 2560x1440, performance improves but remains inadequate. Low settings reach 45 FPS, which is still 15 FPS below the threshold. Medium settings deliver 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS. High settings produce 26 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. The gap between the best result and the target remains substantial.

At 1920x1080, the system comes closest to playable performance. Low settings achieve 56 FPS, just 4 FPS short of 60. This is the only configuration that approaches smooth gameplay, though it still falls short. Medium settings reach 43 FPS, High reaches 33 FPS, and Ultra reaches 31 FPS.

The data indicates that this system is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates. Users would need to accept significant visual compromises and still experience performance below the standard threshold. The combination of a capable CPU with a very limited GPU creates a system that cannot handle this demanding flight simulator.

The 56 FPS result at 1080p Low is worth noting. It suggests that with minor settings adjustments or a slightly less demanding flight scenario, the system might occasionally approach 60 FPS. However, the measured data does not include any configuration that consistently maintains this frame rate.

# How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this system ranks 3302 out of 3714. This places it in the bottom 11% of tested configurations, reflecting the GPU's severe performance limitations.

The rank is particularly striking given the CPU's capabilities. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X performs well in synthetic benchmarks, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11838 and a single-core score of 1541. Its PassMark multithread score of 21858 places it at the 75th percentile among all CPUs. This processor is clearly not the limiting factor.

The Intel Arc B390, however, ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 1482 places it alongside entry-level parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710. This GPU performance level is simply insufficient for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The combination of a 75th percentile CPU with a 9th percentile GPU creates a system that underperforms relative to what the CPU alone might suggest. The overall rank of 3302 out of 3714 reflects this imbalance. Systems with more balanced configurations, even those with slower CPUs but faster GPUs, would likely rank higher in this game.

The data suggests that this combination would be better suited to less demanding games or non-gaming workloads. For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the GPU bottleneck prevents the system from delivering playable performance despite the CPU's capabilities. Users interested in this game would need to consider a different GPU configuration to achieve satisfactory frame rates.