Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and Intel Arc B580 combination delivers a mixed bag for Microsoft Flight Simulator, with playable performance confined to lower presets at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K remains out of reach. Benchmark data for this pairing shows a clear progression: at 1920x1080, the combo averages 97.7 FPS on Low settings and 76 FPS on Medium, but drops to 57.4 FPS on High and 54.5 FPS on Ultra. Moving to 2560x1440, only the Low preset clears the 60 FPS threshold with an average of 74.7 FPS, while Medium sits at 57.3 FPS, High at 47.5 FPS, and Ultra at 42.6 FPS. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches playable frame rates, with Low averaging 54.2 FPS, Medium 42.4 FPS, High 34.7 FPS, and Ultra 31.9 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and Intel Arc B580 achieves playable performance on Low and Medium presets. The Low preset averages 97.7 FPS, while Medium averages 76 FPS, both comfortably above the 60 FPS playable threshold.

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

A: At 2560x1440, only the Low preset maintains an average above 60 FPS, delivering 74.7 FPS. The Medium preset falls short at 57.3 FPS, so Low is the recommended choice for smooth gameplay at this resolution.

Q: Does the combo handle 4K resolution?

A: No. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset averages only 54.2 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Ultra preset averages just 31.9 FPS, indicating that 4K is not viable for this game with this hardware.

Q: How much performance drops when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: The scaling varies by preset. On Low settings, the average FPS drops from 97.7 at 1080p to 74.7 at 1440p, a reduction of 23 FPS. On Medium, the drop is from 76 to 57.3 FPS, and on High from 57.4 to 47.5 FPS. The Ultra preset sees a decline from 54.5 to 42.6 FPS.

Q: What is the ranking of this combo among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2836 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower portion of the tested field. This ranking reflects its limited ability to handle high presets at higher resolutions.

Q: Are there rival components with similar average benchmark scores?

A: For the CPU, the Intel Core i7-11850H has an average score 0.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is 0.2% lower. For the GPU, the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 0.2% lower, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 0.6% higher.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured performance data places this AMD Ryzen 5 7500F plus Intel Arc B580 configuration at rank 2836 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This percentile position — roughly the 24th percentile of tested pairs — indicates that the majority of tested systems outperform this setup in this specific title. The ranking reflects a fundamental limitation: the Arc B580, while a capable 1080p card, struggles to maintain high frame rates as resolution and preset demands increase.

The rank is driven primarily by the GPU's performance ceiling. At 1080p, the combo achieves respectable averages on Low (97.7 FPS) and Medium (76 FPS), but the drop-off to High (57.4 FPS) and Ultra (54.5 FPS) shows that the card cannot sustain high-detail workloads. The 1440p results reinforce this, with only Low clearing 60 FPS. At 4K, all presets fall below 55 FPS, with Ultra barely reaching 31.9 FPS. These numbers explain why the combo sits in the lower third of the ranking — it delivers playable framerates only in narrow conditions.

Comparatively, the CPU's benchmark percentile of 77 (vs all CPUs) suggests the Ryzen 5 7500F is not the limiting factor for most scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 24964 places it near rivals like the Intel Core i7-11850H (24935, 0.1% higher) and AMD Ryzen 5 8400F (25005, 0.2% lower). The GPU's percentile of 68 (vs all GPUs) with an average score of 23021 is closer to its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (22895, 0.6% higher) and RTX 3080 (23172, 0.7% lower). This suggests the GPU's performance is the primary constraint in this pairing.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear pattern where the GPU dominates performance scaling across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Ultra is substantial: 97.7 FPS versus 54.5 FPS, a 43.2 FPS gap. This spread widens at 2560x1440, where Low averages 74.7 FPS and Ultra drops to 42.6 FPS, a 32.1 FPS difference. At 3840x2160, the gap narrows to 22.3 FPS (54.2 vs 31.9), indicating that the CPU begins to play a relatively larger role as the GPU becomes fully saturated.

The resolution scaling tells a similar story. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Medium settings reduces average FPS from 76 to 57.3, a 24.6% decrease. From 1440p to 4K at Medium, the drop is from 57.3 to 42.4 FPS, a 26% reduction. These consistent percentage drops suggest the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as its fill rate and memory bandwidth (456.0 GB/s) are being taxed progressively harder. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz provide sufficient headroom for the simulation's single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its strong benchmark performance (Cinebench R23 multicore score of 22799).

However, the CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and presets. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 97.7 FPS, which is close to what the GPU can deliver when not heavily loaded. The Ryzen 5 7500F's single-thread score of 3218 (Cinebench R23) and 3dmark single-thread score of 974 indicate it can feed the GPU adequately. Yet, at 4K Ultra (31.9 FPS), the GPU is clearly overwhelmed, and the CPU's influence diminishes. The data suggests that for this game, the Arc B580's 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and 13.67 TFLOPS FP32 performance are the decisive factors across all tested settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are closely matched. The Intel Core i7-11850H scores 24935, a 0.1% delta, meaning it would behave nearly identically in CPU-bound scenarios. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F scores 25005, 0.2% higher, while the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911 is 0.2% lower, and the Intel Core 5 210H at 24872 is 0.4% lower. These small deltas (all within 0.4%) indicate that swapping the 7500F for any of these would produce virtually indistinguishable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, assuming the GPU remains the bottleneck.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B580's nearest rivals show more variance. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP has an average score of 23061, just 0.2% below the B580, suggesting similar raw performance. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895, 0.6% higher, while the RTX 3080 scores 23172, 0.7% higher. The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249, 1% higher. In practical terms, these GPUs would deliver frame rates within a few FPS of the B580 at each preset and resolution. For instance, at 1080p Medium, the B580 averages 76 FPS; an RTX 2080 would likely produce around 76-77 FPS, while the RX 580 2048SP might deliver 75-76 FPS. The differences are small enough that users upgrading from any of these cards to another would see minimal change in this game.

Notably, the RTX 3080's 0.7% higher score implies it might edge out the B580 by roughly 0.5-1 FPS at most settings. However, the B580's 12 GB VRAM could provide an advantage in texture-heavy scenarios, though the measured data does not isolate this factor. For users considering alternatives, any of these GPUs would offer similar playable settings: 1080p Low and Medium, 1440p Low, and no 4K presets.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Medium, which averages 76 FPS. This is the highest preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold, and it provides a significant improvement over Low's 97.7 FPS while remaining smooth. High at 57.4 FPS and Ultra at 54.5 FPS both fall below 60 FPS, making them unsuitable for consistent gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the only playable option is Low, which averages 74.7 FPS. The Medium preset at 57.3 FPS is just below the threshold, but the data shows it cannot sustain 60 FPS. Users seeking higher visual fidelity at 1440p would need to accept frame rates in the 47-57 FPS range, which may be tolerable for a flight simulator but does not meet the strict playable standard.

At 3840x2160, no setting achieves 60 FPS. The Low preset comes closest at 54.2 FPS, followed by Medium at 42.4 FPS, High at 34.7 FPS, and Ultra at 31.9 FPS. None of these are recommended for 4K play, as even the lowest settings produce frame rates that could cause noticeable stutter in a simulation context.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with significant limitations based on resolution and preset. The verdict by resolution is clear: at 1920x1080, the combo delivers playable performance on Low (97.7 FPS) and Medium (76 FPS) presets, with Medium being the best playable option. At 2560x1440, only Low achieves playable frame rates at 74.7 FPS, while Medium (57.3 FPS), High (47.5 FPS), and Ultra (42.6 FPS) all fall short. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings; the best average is 54.2 FPS on Low, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

For users targeting 1080p gaming, this combo is a solid choice for Medium settings, offering a smooth experience with room to spare. Those wanting 1440p must compromise with Low settings, which still provide decent visual quality for a flight sim. 4K is not viable with this hardware, as even the lowest preset cannot maintain 60 FPS. The data suggests that the Intel Arc B580 is the limiting factor, as its performance drops sharply with increasing resolution and preset demands, while the Ryzen 5 7500F provides ample CPU headroom.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured average frame rates across presets are as follows: Low delivers 97.7 FPS, Medium delivers 76 FPS, High delivers 57.4 FPS, and Ultra delivers 54.5 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 21.7 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 2.9 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at higher presets. The jump from Medium to High (18.6 FPS drop) is the largest single-step decline, indicating that the High preset introduces a substantial graphical load.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 74.7 FPS on Low, 57.3 FPS on Medium, 47.5 FPS on High, and 42.6 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 17.4 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is 4.9 FPS. Compared to 1080p, the Low preset loses 23 FPS (from 97.7 to 74.7), and Medium loses 18.7 FPS (from 76 to 57.3). This resolution scaling indicates that the GPU's memory bandwidth (456.0 GB/s) and pixel rate (213.6 GPixel/s) are being increasingly taxed.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 54.2 FPS on Low, 42.4 FPS on Medium, 34.7 FPS on High, and 31.9 FPS on Ultra. The Low preset at 4K is roughly equivalent to the High preset at 1440p (54.2 vs 47.5 FPS, with 4K Low being slightly higher). The Ultra preset at 4K (31.9 FPS) is nearly half the 1080p Low result (97.7 FPS), illustrating the severe performance penalty at 4K. Across all resolutions, the Ultra preset shows the smallest absolute differences between resolutions (54.5 at 1080p, 42.6 at 1440p, 31.9 at 4K), suggesting that the game's Ultra settings impose a consistent GPU load that scales predictably with pixel count.