Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Arc B370 combination presents a significant bottleneck situation for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The recorded data shows a processor with strong synthetic benchmarks paired with a graphics solution whose performance profile places it at the very low end of the database. The following analysis breaks down the measured performance, comparative positioning, and practical outcomes for this pairing.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database places the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F in the 83rd percentile among all tested CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 32750 is nearly identical to several nearby alternatives. The Intel Core i5-14600T scores 32707, a delta of only 0.1 percent. The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H follows at 32697, also within 0.2 percent. On the AMD side, the Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scores 32812, which is 0.2 percent higher than the 7400F. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 completes the group at 32662, 0.3 percent lower. These four rivals all sit within a 0.5 percent band, meaning the 7400F delivers effectively identical CPU compute performance to any of them for simulation workloads.

The graphics side tells a very different story. The Intel Arc B370 holds a 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-end parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2 percent higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7 percent higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4 percent lower. This places the Arc B370 in a performance class that predates the game's 2020 release by several generations. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, any of these GPU alternatives would produce similar frame rates, meaning the graphics component is the primary limiter across all tested configurations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the Ryzen 5 7400F and the Arc B370 is stark. The CPU's synthetic scores suggest ample headroom for simulation logic, physics, and scenery loading. The GPU's scores, by contrast, indicate a severe graphics throughput ceiling. The measured FPS data confirms that resolution scaling follows the GPU's limitations almost exactly.

At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination averages 50 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops the average to 41 FPS, a reduction of 9 FPS for a 77 percent increase in pixel count. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 30 FPS, another 11 FPS reduction. This linear relationship between pixel load and frame rate indicates the CPU is not the binding constraint; if the CPU were limiting, the drop from 1440p to 4K would be less pronounced because the CPU workload per frame stays roughly constant while the GPU workload quadruples.

The settings scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 2560x1440, moving from Low to Medium costs 9 FPS (41 to 32), Medium to High costs another 8 FPS (32 to 24), and High to Ultra costs 1 FPS (24 to 23). The diminishing penalty at the top end suggests the GPU is already saturated. At 1920x1080, the same progression costs 11 FPS (50 to 39), then 9 FPS (39 to 30), then 2 FPS (30 to 28). The pattern is consistent: the Arc B370 exhausts its capabilities early, and the Ryzen 5 7400F never becomes the limiting factor in any resolution or preset combination.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete dataset covers three resolutions and four settings levels. At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly below playable thresholds. Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 18 FPS. Ultra settings average 17 FPS. No 4K configuration reaches 60 FPS, and even the most demanding preset falls far short of the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the numbers improve slightly but remain insufficient. Low settings average 41 FPS. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 36 FPS. High settings average 24 FPS. Ultra settings average 23 FPS. Every 1440p preset remains below 60 FPS, with the best case (Low) still 19 FPS short of the target.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings average 50 FPS. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS. Ultra settings average 28 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and least demanding preset, the average stays 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The minimum recorded FPS across all tested configurations is 20 FPS at 4K Medium, while the maximum recorded FPS is 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

The frame time consistency also warrants attention. The only configurations with min and max data are the Medium presets. At 1080p Medium, the spread from 33 to 45 FPS indicates a 36 percent variance between low and high frames. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS, a 33 percent variance. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS, a 35 percent variance. This consistent variance pattern suggests the Arc B370 struggles to maintain steady frame delivery even within a single preset.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific CPU-GPU pairing at position 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 7.7 percent of all tested systems. The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation rather than the CPU's capability. The Ryzen 5 7400F alone holds an 83rd percentile CPU ranking, while the Arc B370 holds a 5th percentile GPU ranking. The combination's overall position is dragged down almost entirely by the graphics component.

For context, a system with this CPU but a mid-range GPU would likely rank much higher, given that the CPU's compute scores are competitive with the 83rd percentile. Conversely, a system with this GPU but a weaker CPU would likely rank similarly, since the GPU is the hard ceiling. The measured FPS data supports this interpretation: the 7400F's processing power is never the limiting factor, as evidenced by the consistent frame rates across resolution scaling that tracks GPU pixel throughput.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS in any tested configuration. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous. At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves a playable frame rate. The best case is Low settings at 30 FPS average, which is exactly half the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, the same result holds: no preset reaches 60 FPS, with Low settings producing the highest average at 41 FPS. At 1920x1080, the situation improves marginally but still fails. Low settings average 50 FPS, leaving a 10 FPS gap to the playable threshold.

The playable settings list is empty for all three resolutions. The database records no configuration where the average FPS meets or exceeds 60. For users seeking 60 FPS gameplay, this combination requires either a lower resolution than tested (such as 1280x720) or a significant reduction in graphical settings beyond the Low preset. Neither option is documented in the measured data, so the verdict stands: this system is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at standard resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: No. The best measured result at 1920x1080 is 50 FPS average on Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra presets produce 39, 30, and 28 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination exceeds this value.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 7400F's average benchmark score of 32750 is within 0.3 percent of the Intel Core i5-14600T, Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. All five CPUs deliver effectively identical compute performance.

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

A: The Intel Arc B370's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is within 1.4 percent of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000. These are all legacy graphics parts from earlier generations.

Q: Which component limits performance in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The measured FPS scales proportionally with resolution changes, indicating the CPU has spare capacity. The Ryzen 5 7400F ranks in the 83rd percentile among CPUs, while the Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among GPUs.

Q: What is the best recorded frame time consistency?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 shows the narrowest recorded range, from 33 to 45 FPS. The 1440p and 4K Medium presets show ranges of 27 to 36 and 20 to 27 FPS respectively.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no settings preset maintains an average at or above 60 FPS. The recorded data shows Low settings at 30 FPS as the highest average, but this remains below the playable threshold. The database lists no playable settings for this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the same outcome applies. Low settings produce a 41 FPS average, which is 19 FPS below the 60 FPS target. No preset clears the threshold, so no recommended settings exist.

At 1920x1080, the closest configuration is Low settings with a 50 FPS average. This remains 10 FPS short of the playable threshold. Medium settings drop to 39 FPS, High to 30 FPS, and Ultra to 28 FPS. Since the verdict requires an average of 60 FPS or higher, the database records no playable settings for this resolution either.