Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Intel Arc B570 combination is a mid-range pairing that delivers playable performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only after making significant graphical compromises. At 1080p, the combo can reach 60 FPS on Medium settings, while 1440p users are limited to Low settings, and 4K remains entirely out of reach for smooth gameplay. The data shows a system that is capable, yet clearly constrained by the demanding nature of this flight simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

Out of 3,714 tested hardware combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing ranks at position 2,988. That places it in the bottom 20% of all tested systems, which is a sobering statistic for a CPU that sits in the 75th percentile among all processors and a GPU in the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. The gap between component-level percentiles and the in-game rank highlights how punishing this simulator is on hardware.

The Ryzen 5 5600X, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, posts an average benchmark score of 21,771, placing it just ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H by a 0.1% margin. The Intel Arc B570, built on the Xe2-HPG architecture with 2,304 shading units, achieves an average benchmark score of 20,556, nearly matching the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% difference) and edging out the Intel Arc A750 by 0.1%. Despite these respectable standalone numbers, the combination's rank suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator demands more from both components than their raw scores might indicate.

The measured frame rates tell a clear story of diminishing returns as resolution increases. At 1080p, the system manages 67 FPS on Medium settings, but this drops to 54 FPS at 1440p and 40 FPS at 4K on the same preset. The pattern reveals a system that is barely adequate for 1080p gaming and progressively struggles at higher resolutions.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but only at 1080p and 1440p with reduced settings. At 1920x1080, the system achieves 86 FPS on Low and 67 FPS on Medium, both exceeding the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 2560x1440, only Low settings reach 69 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the highest average being 51 FPS on Low.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600X scores 21,771 on average, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H (21,749) and 0.5% higher than both the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U (21,874) and Intel Core i7-11700 (21,891). The differences are negligible, meaning users would see virtually identical performance from any of these processors.

Q: What is the GPU's closest competitor in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Arc B570 averages 20,556, which is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534) and the Intel Arc A750 (20,582). The AMD Radeon R9 M390X trails by 0.5% with a score of 20,662, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is 0.4% behind at 20,480.

Q: Is the 4K performance usable for any settings?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best result is 51 FPS on Low settings, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold. Ultra settings produce only 28 FPS, High produces 30 FPS, and Medium produces 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS. None of these are playable at 4K.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p on Medium settings?

A: The average frame rate drops from 67 FPS at 1920x1080 to 54 FPS at 2560x1440, a decrease of 13 FPS. The minimum frame rate also falls from 57 to 46 FPS, while the maximum drops from 77 to 62 FPS. This represents a 19% reduction in average performance.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 1440p?

A: The only playable setting at 2560x1440 is Low, which produces an average of 69 FPS. Medium settings fall to 54 FPS, below the 60 FPS threshold, so Low is the maximum quality preset that maintains smooth gameplay at this resolution.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, achieving an average of 67 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 57 FPS dips slightly below the threshold, but the average comfortably clears it. High settings drop to 50 FPS, making them unplayable.

At 2560x1440, the only preset that maintains 60+ FPS is Low, with an average of 69 FPS. Medium settings fall to 54 FPS, which fails the playability criterion. Users at this resolution must accept minimal graphical quality to achieve smooth performance.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best option is Low at 51 FPS, but this still falls short of the playable threshold. The verdict data confirms that no playable settings exist at this resolution for this hardware combination.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the Ryzen 5 5600X's nearest rivals are remarkably close in average benchmark scores. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800H scores 21,749 (0.1% lower), making it a nearly identical performer. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U and Intel Core i7-11700 both score 21,874 and 21,891 respectively, sitting 0.5% higher. The AMD EPYC 9554P rounds out the group at 21,899, just 0.6% above the 5600X. In practical terms, any of these processors would deliver indistinguishable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B570's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, which scores 20,534 (0.1% higher). The Intel Arc A750 is nearly identical at 20,582 (0.1% higher). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20,480 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20,662 (0.5% higher). Users considering alternative graphics cards would see essentially the same performance from any of these options.

The combination of the Ryzen 5 5600X with any of these rival GPUs would produce similar results, as would pairing the Arc B570 with any of the rival CPUs. The tight clustering of benchmark scores across all these components means upgrade paths are limited without jumping to a significantly more powerful tier.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K UHD):

• Ultra: 28 FPS average
• High: 30 FPS average
• Medium: 40 FPS average, 34 FPS minimum, 46 FPS maximum
• Low: 51 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Ultra: 39 FPS average
• High: 41 FPS average
• Medium: 54 FPS average, 46 FPS minimum, 62 FPS maximum
• Low: 69 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Ultra: 48 FPS average
• High: 50 FPS average
• Medium: 67 FPS average, 57 FPS minimum, 77 FPS maximum
• Low: 86 FPS average

The frame rate scaling across resolutions shows a consistent pattern. Moving from 1080p to 1440p on Medium settings reduces performance by 19%, while moving from 1440p to 4K on the same preset reduces it by a further 26%. The minimum frame rates at Medium settings demonstrate that even when averages are close to the threshold, dips can occur — at 1080p, the minimum of 57 FPS is just below the 60 FPS playable mark.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but the playable experience depends heavily on resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the system clears the 60 FPS threshold on both Low (86 FPS) and Medium (67 FPS) presets, making it a viable option for 1080p gaming with moderate quality. At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve 69 FPS, which meets the playable standard but forces significant visual compromises. At 3840x2160, no settings reach 60 FPS — the best result is 51 FPS on Low, which falls short of smooth gameplay.

The data indicates this is a 1080p-oriented system for this particular game. Users with 1440p monitors can still play, but they must accept the lowest graphical preset. The 4K experience is not viable, with even Low settings failing to reach the playable threshold. The ranking of 2,988 out of 3,714 combos reinforces this assessment, placing the system in the lower quartile of tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals how the balance between CPU and GPU shifts across resolutions. At 1080p, the Ryzen 5 5600X's strong single-thread performance (917 in 3dmark single-thread, 1,541 in Cinebench R23 single-core) helps maintain 86 FPS on Low settings. However, the Arc B570's 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases.

The scaling from 1080p to 4K demonstrates GPU dominance in this workload. On Medium settings, the system delivers 67 FPS at 1080p but only 40 FPS at 4K — a 40% reduction. If the CPU were the primary bottleneck, this drop would be less severe, as resolution increases typically load the GPU more heavily. The CPU's percentile ranking (75th among all processors) versus the GPU's (65th) suggests the GPU is the weaker link in this pairing.

However, the CPU still plays a significant role. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration with 32 MB of L3 cache provides adequate processing power for the simulator's complex flight physics. The 65W TDP and Zen 3 architecture deliver strong per-core performance, which matters for a game that likely has a primary simulation thread. The data shows that at 1440p Low (69 FPS) versus 1080p Low (86 FPS), the 20% reduction indicates both components are being stressed, but the GPU's rendering load increases more than the CPU's simulation workload.

The Intel Arc B570's 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 380.0 GB/s bandwidth provides sufficient memory bandwidth for this simulator, but the 2,304 shading units and 80 ROPs appear inadequate for 4K rendering. The GPU's DirectX 12 score of 72 in Passmark, compared to its DirectX 11 score of 118, suggests the architecture performs better under older APIs — a notable observation given Microsoft Flight Simulator's DirectX 12 support. This disparity may explain why the system struggles at higher resolutions where modern rendering features are more heavily utilized.