Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and Intel Arc B370 combination paints a challenging picture. Across every tested resolution and preset, the average frame rates remain below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The measurements show a clear pattern: the higher the resolution and the more demanding the preset, the lower the average FPS.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are uniformly low. The Low preset produces an average of 30 FPS, which is the best outcome at this resolution. Medium drops to 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High averages 18 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. None of these averages approach the 60 FPS target, and even the maximum observed value at Medium (27 FPS) remains far below playable.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the situation improves slightly but remains insufficient. Low averages 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, showing that preset choice matters considerably, yet even the least demanding preset falls short of 60 FPS by 19 FPS.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the best recorded average appears. Low reaches 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The Low preset at 1080p is the closest any configuration comes to the target, but it still misses by 10 FPS. The data shows that no setting combination in the measured set achieves the playable threshold.

The spread between presets narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS. At 1440p, that difference shrinks to 18 FPS. At 4K, the Low to Ultra spread is only 13 FPS. This compression suggests that at higher resolutions, the graphics processor becomes the dominant constraint, limiting the impact of preset adjustments.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict data indicates that there is no playable setting at any resolution for this combination. The playableSettings arrays are empty for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, and the bestSettings field is null in each case. The database records no average FPS at a best setting because no setting meets the 60 FPS requirement.

At 3840x2160, the most favorable measured average is 30 FPS on Low. This is the highest average recorded at this resolution, but it is not classified as playable. At 2560x1440, Low again provides the best average at 41 FPS, yet this remains below the threshold. At 1920x1080, Low delivers 50 FPS, the highest average in the entire dataset, but it still does not clear the 60 FPS bar.

The implication is straightforward: users seeking 60 FPS will need to reduce resolution below 1080p or accept lower frame rates. The recorded data includes no sub-1080p measurements, so the database cannot confirm whether a lower resolution would achieve playable performance. What the measurements do show is that within the tested range, every preset at every resolution fails the playable criterion.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and the Intel Arc B370 shifts across resolutions, but the data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios. The Arc B370 records a percentileVsAllGpus of 5, meaning it ranks in the bottom 5 percent of all GPUs in the database. Its only benchmark score is 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000. These are all older or lower-tier parts, and the Arc B370's performance is within 1.4 percent of them. This places the GPU in a very low performance tier.

The CPU, by contrast, is a much stronger component. The Ryzen 5 7600 sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26324. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS, Intel Core i9-11900KF, and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U, all within 0.5 percent of its average score. The CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads, a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12735. This is a capable mid-range desktop processor.

The resolution scaling in the FPS data supports the notion that the GPU dominates. At 1080p, Low averages 50 FPS, while at 4K, Low averages 30 FPS. This 20 FPS drop across a fourfold increase in pixel count indicates that the GPU's rendering capacity is the primary constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain more stable across resolutions, since the CPU's workload does not scale as directly with pixel count.

Preset scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra costs 22 FPS (50 down to 28). At 4K, the same preset change costs only 13 FPS (30 down to 17). The smaller absolute drop at 4K suggests that the GPU is already saturated at Low settings, leaving little headroom for additional graphical work. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is unlikely to be the limiting factor in any of these scenarios.

The game itself, Microsoft Flight Simulator, is known in the database for being demanding, and the measured data reflects that. The combination of a strong CPU and a very weak GPU produces a system where the GPU consistently holds back performance. At lower resolutions, the CPU could theoretically push higher frame rates, but the GPU cannot deliver them. At higher resolutions, the GPU's limitations become even more pronounced.

The Verdict

The recorded verdict is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any tested resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution data shows empty playableSettings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. There is no best setting and no average FPS at a best setting because no configuration clears the playable threshold of 60 FPS.

At 4K, the best average is 30 FPS on Low, which is exactly half the target. At 1440p, Low reaches 41 FPS, still 19 FPS short. At 1080p, Low reaches 50 FPS, 10 FPS short. The closest the system comes to playable performance is 1080p Low at 50 FPS, but the database does not classify this as playable.

The data also shows that Ultra settings are essentially out of reach. At 4K Ultra, the average is 17 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it is 23 FPS. At 1080p Ultra, it is 28 FPS. These are slideshow-level frame rates for a flight simulator, where smooth visuals matter for both immersion and situational awareness.

The GPU is the clear culprit. With a percentile rank of 5 and an average benchmark score of 1184, the Arc B370 is far below the level needed for this title. Even the very strong CPU, with its 78th percentile ranking, cannot compensate. The combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in this game, placing it in the bottom 8 percent of all tested configurations. Users should expect to lower resolution substantially or upgrade the GPU to achieve playable performance.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the CPU and GPU provide context for what similar hardware would do in this game. For the AMD Ryzen 5 7600, the closest comparable CPUs are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX with an average score of 26274 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS with a score of 26402 and a delta of negative 0.3 percent, the Intel Core i9-11900KF with a score of 26212 and a delta of 0.4 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 5 8540U with a score of 26187 and a delta of 0.5 percent. All of these are within half a percent of the Ryzen 5 7600's average score of 26324. In practical terms, swapping the Ryzen 5 7600 for any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical CPU-bound behavior in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since their benchmark scores are effectively the same.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest rivals are dramatically weaker in absolute terms. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 with a delta of negative 0.2 percent, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 with a delta of negative 0.5 percent, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 with a delta of negative 0.7 percent, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 with a delta of 1.4 percent. The Arc B370's average score is 1184, placing it right in the middle of this group. These are all legacy or low-end parts, and their performance in a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator would be similarly inadequate. A user upgrading from any of these GPUs to the Arc B370 would see essentially no measurable difference in frame rates.

The delta values indicate that the Arc B370 is not merely close to these rivals; it is statistically indistinguishable from them in the database's scoring. The 0.2 percent gap between the Arc B370 and the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 is negligible. This means the GPU's performance class is well established, and the FPS results in this game reflect that class accurately.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.7 percent of all tested configurations. The ranking reflects the severe imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this pairing.

To put this in perspective, the combo sits above only 286 other tested combinations. The vast majority of systems tested in this game outperform it. This is not a case of a mid-tier system falling slightly short; it is a case of a strong processor being paired with a GPU that ranks at the 5th percentile. The CPU's 78th percentile standing does little to lift the overall result because the game's frame rate is constrained by the GPU at every tested resolution and preset.

The rank also implies that many combinations with weaker CPUs but stronger GPUs would deliver better results in this specific title. Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily GPU-bound in these measurements, as evidenced by the resolution scaling discussed earlier. The database's ranking captures this reality: the combo's position at 3428 out of 3714 is driven almost entirely by the GPU's low performance ceiling.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The best recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. No other configuration reaches this value; the next closest is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

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

A: No. The database records no playable settings at any resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and every measured average falls below it, from 50 FPS at 1080p Low down to 17 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck for this game?

A: The Intel Arc B370 GPU is the primary constraint. It ranks at the 5th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 1184, while the Ryzen 5 7600 ranks at the 78th percentile among CPUs with an average score of 26324. The FPS drop across resolutions indicates GPU saturation.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184, which 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 rivals score between 1168 and 1192, making them statistically similar in performance.

Q: What is the best preset at 1440p?

A: The Low preset delivers the highest average at 2560x1440 with 41 FPS. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in this game?

A: It ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 7.7 percent of all tested configs for Microsoft Flight Simulator.