Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the playable threshold for Microsoft Flight Simulator in this database?

A: The database sets the playable threshold at 60 FPS. Any setting or resolution combination that fails to reach at least 60 FPS average is not considered playable.

Q: Does this combo hit 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The recorded data shows no resolution or preset combination reaches 60 FPS. The closest result is 1080p Low with 56 FPS average, which falls just short of the threshold.

Q: Which resolution delivers the highest average frame rate?

A: 1920x1080 with Low settings produces the highest recorded average at 56 FPS. This is the only measurement above 50 FPS across the entire dataset.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark?

A: The Arc B390 scores 1482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. That puts it just 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M, 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710. The performance gap between this GPU and its closest competitors is very narrow.

Q: What is the CPU's standing among all tested processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 ranks in the 78th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 26324 places it within 0.5% of several nearby processors, including the Ryzen 9 6900HX, Ryzen 7 7435HS, Core i9-11900KF, and Ryzen 5 8540U.

Q: Is the GPU or the CPU the limiting factor in this combination?

A: The data strongly indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 7600 sits in the 78th percentile among CPUs. The massive gap between these two percentile rankings suggests the GPU constrains performance far more than the processor.

CPU and GPU Roles

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 processor running on the AM5 socket. It boosts up to 5.10 GHz and scores 12735 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1852 in single-core. Its average benchmark score of 26324 puts it in the 78th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Arc B390, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture with 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This is an enormous mismatch in relative capability.

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals which component dominates. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 56 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 45 FPS, a 19.6% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 33 FPS, another 26.7% drop from 1440p. The consistent degradation as resolution climbs points to GPU-bound behavior: the render load scales with pixel count, and the Arc B390 cannot keep pace.

Preset scaling tells a similar story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS (56 to 43), from Medium to High costs 10 FPS (43 to 33), and from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS (33 to 31). The diminishing returns at higher presets suggest the GPU is already saturated. At 4K, Low produces 33 FPS, Medium 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra settle at 19 FPS. The fact that High and Ultra are identical at 4K indicates the GPU hits a hard ceiling regardless of additional graphics workload.

The CPU, meanwhile, is far more capable than what the frame rates suggest. A processor in the 78th percentile with 12 threads and a 5.10 GHz boost clock should not be the bottleneck in a flight simulator. The recorded data shows the GPU's percentile rank of 9 is the more likely constraint. At every resolution and preset, the Arc B390 appears to limit the combo well before the Ryzen 5 7600's headroom is exhausted. Resolution scaling is the clearest evidence: if the CPU were the bottleneck, frame rates would not fall so steeply as pixel count rises.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the results are consistently low. Low settings produce an average of 33 FPS with no recorded minimum or maximum. Medium settings average 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. High settings average 19 FPS with no min or max recorded. Ultra settings also average 19 FPS. The spread between Low and High at 4K is 14 FPS, and the Medium result's minimum of 22 FPS shows the frame time variance is meaningful even at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the numbers improve but remain far from playable. Low settings average 45 FPS. Medium averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High averages 26 FPS. Ultra averages 25 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is just 1 FPS. The 1440p Medium minimum of 30 FPS is exactly half the playable threshold, which illustrates how far this combo is from a smooth experience at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings average 56 FPS, just 4 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High averages 33 FPS. Ultra averages 31 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the only measurement in the entire dataset that approaches the playable threshold. The Medium minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS show noticeable variance, but the average of 43 FPS is still 17 FPS below the target.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings offer the best frame rates, and the gap between presets narrows as resolution increases. At 4K, High and Ultra are identical at 19 FPS. At 1440p, High and Ultra differ by 1 FPS. At 1080p, High and Ultra differ by 2 FPS. This compression at higher resolutions indicates the GPU's compute resources are exhausted, and additional graphics features have little or no measurable impact.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Ryzen 5 7600's nearest rivals in the database are all within 0.5% of its average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores 26274, which is 0.2% lower than the 7600's 26324. The AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 26402, 0.3% higher. The Intel Core i9-11900KF scores 26212, 0.4% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 8540U scores 26187, 0.5% lower. For CPU-bound tasks, any of these processors would behave nearly identically to the Ryzen 5 7600. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, however, the CPU is not the limiting factor, so swapping among these processors would produce minimal frame rate changes.

The Intel Arc B390's nearest rivals are far less capable. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower. The GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These GPUs are all within a few percentage points of the Arc B390 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The practical implication is that any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game. None of them would come close to the 60 FPS threshold.

The combination of a high-percentile CPU with a low-percentile GPU means the alternatives list is effectively determined by the GPU. A system with a Ryzen 5 7600 and any of the Arc B390's nearest rival GPUs would land in the same performance tier, with all of them failing to reach playable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Conversely, pairing the Arc B390 with a weaker CPU would likely yield similar results, since the GPU is already the bottleneck at every resolution and preset.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The recorded data says no, not at any resolution or preset. The verdict by resolution is unambiguous: 3840x2160 has no playable settings, 2560x1440 has no playable settings, and 1920x1080 has no playable settings. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the best recorded average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low. That is 4 FPS short of the target.

The 1080p Low result deserves closer scrutiny. An average of 56 FPS is tantalizingly close to 60, but it is still below the threshold. The database's verdict system treats this as not playable, and the absence of any other 1080p result above 50 FPS reinforces that conclusion. Medium at 1080p drops to 43 FPS, High to 33 FPS, and Ultra to 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 13 FPS, which means even a modest settings increase pushes the frame rate well below the playable range.

At 1440p and 4K, the situation is worse. The best 1440p result is 45 FPS at Low, and the best 4K result is 33 FPS at Low. Neither comes close to the threshold. The data shows this combo is not viable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution, and users seeking a playable experience would need to consider different hardware entirely.

How This Combo Ranks

This CPU and GPU combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations. The rank reflects the severe GPU limitation: a 9th percentile graphics solution paired with a 78th percentile processor produces a system that is far weaker than the sum of its parts would suggest.

The rank also contextualizes the measured frame rates. A combo in the 3302nd position out of 3714 is expected to fall well short of playable performance in a demanding flight simulator, and the data confirms that expectation. The 1080p Low result of 56 FPS is the only bright spot, and even that is below the threshold. The overall ranking indicates that the vast majority of tested combinations outperform this one in this specific game.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best recorded result is Low at 33 FPS, but since the database's playable threshold requires 60 FPS, there is no recommended setting for this resolution. The verdict data confirms this: no playable settings exist at 4K, and the best settings field is null.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. Low produces 45 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution, but it is 15 FPS short of the threshold. No playable settings exist at 1440p, and the best settings field is null.

At 1920x1080, Low produces 56 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across the entire dataset. It is still 4 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold, so no playable settings exist at 1080p either. The best settings field is null for this resolution as well.

In summary, the database records no playable settings for this combo at any resolution. The closest miss is 1080p Low at 56 FPS, but the threshold is absolute: 60 FPS or nothing. For users considering this hardware, the data shows that Microsoft Flight Simulator is not a viable title at the playable threshold, and the recommendation is to look at alternative components or accept sub-60 FPS performance.