Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and Intel Arc B370 shows a consistently challenging performance profile across all tested resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are uniformly below the 60 FPS playability threshold. The Low preset delivers the highest average at 30 FPS, followed by Medium at 23 FPS with a recorded range of 20 to 27 FPS. High and Ultra presets drop further to 18 FPS and 17 FPS respectively, with no min or max values recorded for those two settings.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern improves slightly but remains firmly sub-60. Low preset reaches an average of 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 36 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 18 FPS, indicating that the graphical preset has a substantial impact on performance.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low preset averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a range of 33 to 45 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and preset, the average stays 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The data shows no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS average, and the highest recorded average across the entire test matrix is 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

The min and max values recorded only for the Medium preset at each resolution provide additional context. At 4K Medium, the frame rate fluctuates between 20 and 27 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS. These ranges suggest that even within a single preset, the frame pacing varies noticeably, which can affect perceived smoothness during flight over dense scenery.

CPU and GPU Roles

Analyzing the scaling between resolutions and presets reveals which component limits performance in this game. The CPU, AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, has a PassMark multithread score of 25047 and a single-thread score of 3494, placing it in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. The GPU, Intel Arc B370, has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 and sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. This enormous gap in relative standing strongly indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck.

The performance scaling across resolutions confirms this. From 1080p Low at 50 FPS to 1440p Low at 41 FPS, the average drops by 9 FPS, an 18% reduction. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, the average drops from 41 to 30 FPS, a further 27% reduction. This consistent degradation as resolution increases is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where higher pixel counts demand more from the graphics hardware.

Preset scaling tells a similar story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 50 to 28 FPS, a 44% drop. At 1440p, the same preset change reduces performance from 41 to 23 FPS, a 44% drop. At 4K, Low to Ultra goes from 30 to 17 FPS, a 43% drop. The near-identical percentage reductions across resolutions indicate that the GPU is saturated at all settings, and the CPU has enough headroom to feed it consistently.

The CPU's 96 MB of shared L3 cache and 6 cores with 12 threads are sufficient for the game's simulation logic, but the Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 40 texture mapping units cannot keep up with the rendering demands. The GPU's memory being system shared further compounds the issue, as bandwidth is dependent on the system memory configuration rather than dedicated VRAM. The data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the limiting factor; every frame rate drop aligns with increased GPU workload.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. No setting at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold.

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

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. 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.

Q: Does lowering the resolution help reach 60 FPS?

A: No. The data shows that even at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, the average FPS is 50, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Lowering resolution from 4K to 1080p improves performance, but not enough to reach playable levels.

Q: What is the frame rate range at Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS. These are the only settings with recorded min and max values.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D has an average benchmark score of 44573. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 44466, which is 0.2% lower. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309, 0.6% lower. The Intel Core i5-14600 scores 44889, which is 0.7% higher.

Q: Is this combination playable at any resolution according to the database?

A: No. The verdict by resolution shows no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this combination at 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.7% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's low percentile ranking. The Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 7500X3D sits in the 89th percentile among all CPUs. The combination of a strong CPU with a very weak GPU results in a system that is severely GPU-limited for this title.

The rank of 3428 means that 3427 other combos deliver better performance in this game, while only 286 combos perform worse. This is a notable finding because the CPU is relatively capable; its PassMark multithread score of 25047 and single-thread score of 3494 are respectable for a 6-core part. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU, which has a 3DMark score of only 1184, comparable to integrated graphics from over a decade ago based on the nearest rival scores.

The data indicates that pairing a high-percentile CPU with a low-percentile GPU produces a system that ranks near the bottom for a demanding flight simulator. The game's reliance on GPU throughput for cockpit rendering, terrain tessellation, and weather effects means the CPU's advantages cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations. The 3428 rank reflects this imbalance accurately.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any tested resolution or preset. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and no configuration reaches that mark. At 3840x2160, the best average is 30 FPS on Low, which is 30 FPS below the threshold. At 2560x1440, the best average is 41 FPS on Low, which is 19 FPS below the threshold. At 1920x1080, the best average is 50 FPS on Low, which is 10 FPS below the threshold.

The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for any resolution. The best settings field is null for all three resolutions, and the average FPS at best is also null. This means the database does not record any configuration that achieves 60 FPS or higher with this hardware.

For users considering this combination, the data is unambiguous: the Arc B370 is not sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator, even at the lowest settings and resolution. The 5th percentile GPU ranking and the 3428 combo rank provide ample warning. The CPU is not the issue; the Ryzen 5 7500X3D is a capable processor with strong cache and multi-threading performance. The GPU simply lacks the raw throughput, with only 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 20 ROPs, to handle the game's rendering load.

Best Settings per Resolution

Since no preset at any resolution achieves 60 FPS, the database records no best settings for this combination. The verdict by resolution shows null values for best settings and average FPS at best across all three resolutions.

The closest approach to playability is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which averages 50 FPS. This is 10 FPS below the threshold. The next closest is 2560x1440 Low at 41 FPS, followed by 3840x2160 Low at 30 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS target.

For users who must run the game with this hardware, the data suggests that even the lowest settings will not provide a smooth experience. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 39 FPS with a range of 33 to 45 FPS, which may be preferable to Low for visual quality if the user accepts sub-60 performance. However, the database's playability threshold is strict, and no setting qualifies.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU provide context for what other processors would perform similarly in this combination. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average score of 44466, which is 0.2% below the Ryzen 5 7500X3D's 44573. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44342, 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44309, 0.6% lower. The Intel Core i5-14600 scores 44889, which is 0.7% higher. These CPUs would deliver essentially identical frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU, since the GPU is the limiting factor.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are all significantly older parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% higher than the Arc B370's 1184. 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, 1.4% lower. These scores indicate that the Arc B370's performance is comparable to GPUs from a much earlier era, which explains the low combo rank.

Users with any of these rival GPUs would experience nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The differences of less than 2% in benchmark scores translate to less than 1 FPS difference in the measured averages. The choice between these GPUs would not change the fundamental conclusion that 60 FPS is unreachable with this combination.