Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 and Intel Arc B570 combination delivers a split decision in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the data showing a clear divide between 1080p and 1440p playability versus a hard wall at 4K. This pairing ranks near the bottom of the tested pool, sitting at 2988 out of 3714 combos, which places it in the lower 20 percent of all systems tested for this title. The results paint a picture of a setup that can handle the simulation at mainstream resolutions but falls short of the demanding 60 FPS threshold at 4K under any preset.

Best Settings per Resolution

The measured FPS data reveals that this system can only clear the 60 FPS playability threshold at two resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset is the most demanding setting that stays at or above 60 FPS, delivering an average of 67 FPS. The Low preset at this resolution pushes higher at 86 FPS average, but Medium represents the highest visual quality tier that maintains smooth gameplay, with the Ultra and High presets falling to 48 FPS and 50 FPS averages respectively.

Moving to 2560x1440, the options narrow considerably. The Low preset is the only playable setting, achieving 69 FPS average. The Medium preset drops to 54 FPS average, which sits below the 60 FPS threshold, while High and Ultra average 41 FPS and 39 FPS respectively. The gap between Low and Medium at this resolution is substantial, with a 15 FPS average difference that pushes Medium just out of reach.

At 3840x2160, no settings preset achieves the 60 FPS target. The best result comes from Low at 51 FPS average, followed by Medium at 40 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. The data shows a steep performance cliff between 1440p and 4K, with even the lowest settings failing to approach playability. The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium at 1080p with 67 FPS average, making that the optimal balance of visual fidelity and smooth frame pacing for this hardware combo.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals a workload that becomes heavily GPU-bound as pixel count rises. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low and Medium is 19 FPS (86 to 67), while the jump from Medium to High costs 17 FPS (67 to 50). This pattern suggests the CPU has enough headroom at lower resolutions, with the GPU becoming the limiting factor as settings increase. The Ryzen 5 7600, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, shows strong single-thread performance in synthetic benchmarks, scoring 999 in 3dmark single-thread and 1852 in cinebench r23 singlecore, which aligns with the game's known reliance on single-threaded simulation logic.

At 2560x1440, the performance drop becomes more pronounced. Low averages 69 FPS, but Medium falls to 54 FPS, a 15 FPS penalty that nearly matches the 1080p gap between the same settings. High and Ultra drop further to 41 and 39 FPS, indicating the GPU's 10 GB GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are struggling with the increased pixel load. The Arc B570's FP32 throughput of 11.52 TFLOPS appears insufficient for the higher resolution demands.

The 4K results confirm the GPU is the primary bottleneck. From Low at 51 FPS to Medium at 40 FPS, the scaling shows an 11 FPS loss, with High and Ultra collapsing to 30 and 28 FPS. The 160-bit memory bus and 10 GB VRAM capacity create a hard ceiling that no CPU-side optimization can overcome. The CPU's role diminishes as resolution increases, evidenced by the fact that the Ryzen 5 7600 can deliver 86 FPS at 1080p Low, but the GPU limits the same preset to 51 FPS at 4K. The data implies the Intel Arc B570 is the decisive factor at 1440p and above, while the CPU retains relevance only at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 86 FPS average
• Medium: 67 FPS average, 57 FPS minimum, 77 FPS maximum
• High: 50 FPS average
• Ultra: 48 FPS average

The 1080p results show a wide spread across presets, with the 19 FPS gap between Low and Medium indicating significant headroom in the Low preset. The Medium preset's minimum of 57 FPS sits close to the 60 FPS target, suggesting occasional dips below the threshold during complex scenes. High and Ultra land within 2 FPS of each other, implying diminishing returns beyond Medium.

2560x1440:

• Low: 69 FPS average
• Medium: 54 FPS average, 46 FPS minimum, 62 FPS maximum
• High: 41 FPS average
• Ultra: 39 FPS average

The 1440p data shows a compressed range compared to 1080p. Low maintains playability, but the Medium preset's 46 FPS minimum reveals consistent dips below the threshold. The 15 FPS drop from Low to Medium at this resolution versus 19 FPS at 1080p suggests the GPU is becoming the limiting factor. High and Ultra cluster tightly, with only 2 FPS separating them, mirroring the 1080p pattern.

3840x2160:

• Low: 51 FPS average
• Medium: 40 FPS average, 34 FPS minimum, 46 FPS maximum
• High: 30 FPS average
• Ultra: 28 FPS average

At 4K, the performance collapse is evident. The 11 FPS gap between Low and Medium is the smallest across all resolutions, indicating the GPU is saturated even at Low settings. The Medium preset's 34 FPS minimum falls well below playability, and the 2 FPS difference between High and Ultra at this resolution mirrors the pattern seen at lower resolutions. The data shows a consistent 40+ FPS drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low, underscoring the resolution's massive cost.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2988 out of 3714 tested systems places this configuration in the 20th percentile of all hardware combinations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking reflects the Arc B570's position relative to the broader GPU landscape, with the card sitting at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU, meanwhile, ranks at the 78th percentile among all processors, indicating the CPU is the stronger component in this pairing.

The rank suggests that while the individual components are mid-tier, their combination for this specific game falls short of many alternatives. The data implies that the Arc B570's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 200.0 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient for the simulation's demanding rendering workload. The game's release in 2020 predates the GPU's architecture, which may contribute to the suboptimal performance, though the benchmark data does not explicitly confirm this. The 3714 total combos provide context that this system sits closer to the bottom quartile than the middle, with 726 systems ranking below it.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals show that the Ryzen 5 7600 sits in a tight performance cluster. The AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX scores 26274 with a 0.2 percent delta, while the AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS scores 26402 with a -0.3 percent delta. The Intel Core i9-11900KF and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U round out the group with scores of 26212 and 26187, deltas of 0.4 and 0.5 percent respectively. These four alternatives all fall within half a percent of the Ryzen 5 7600's average benchmark score of 26324, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates when paired with the Arc B570.

On the GPU side, the Arc B570's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile with a 20534 average score and 0.1 percent delta, and the Intel Arc A750 with a 20582 score and -0.1 percent delta. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and AMD Radeon R9 M390X also appear nearby, with deltas of 0.4 and -0.5 percent respectively. The Arc B570's average benchmark score of 20556 places it squarely between the RTX 3070 Mobile and the Arc A750. Swapping the B570 for either of these GPUs would yield nearly identical performance in this game, though the RTX 3070 Mobile's mobile nature may introduce other variables not captured in the data.

Substituting the CPU with any of its four nearest rivals would change frame rates by less than one percent, making the Ryzen 5 7600 interchangeable with those alternatives. The same applies to the GPU, where the RTX 3070 Mobile and Arc A750 would behave within 0.1 percent of the B570. This suggests that the bottleneck is not the specific component selection but rather the performance tier these parts occupy.

The Verdict

The verdict data is unambiguous: this system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS only at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440, and only on specific presets. At 1920x1080, both Low and Medium presets clear the threshold, with Medium providing the best visual quality at 67 FPS average. At 2560x1440, only Low achieves playability with 69 FPS average. The 3840x2160 resolution returns no playable settings, with the best effort being Low at 51 FPS average, which falls 9 FPS short of the target.

The measured results indicate that players targeting 4K must either lower resolution or accept sub-60 FPS performance. The data shows a clear progression: the system handles 1080p comfortably across two presets, squeaks by at 1440p on the lowest settings, and fails entirely at 4K. The 67 FPS average at 1080p Medium represents the sweet spot, offering 60+ FPS with moderate visual fidelity. For 1440p users, the Low preset's 69 FPS average is the only option, and even that sits just 9 FPS above the threshold. The system's overall rank of 2988 out of 3714 confirms it is not a high-performance configuration for this title, but it does meet the baseline playability standard at the two most common resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on a 4K monitor?

A: No. The data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The best result is Low settings with an average of 51 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the highest quality preset that maintains 60 FPS at 1920x1080?

A: The Medium preset achieves an average of 67 FPS, making it the most demanding playable setting at this resolution. The Low preset runs faster at 86 FPS, but Medium offers the best visual quality while staying above 60 FPS.

Q: How does this system compare to other tested configurations overall?

A: It ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower portion of the tested pool. The CPU sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 65th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 2560x1440?

A: The GPU becomes the bottleneck at 1440p. The Low preset achieves 69 FPS, but Medium drops to 54 FPS, a 15 FPS penalty that indicates the Arc B570 cannot handle the increased workload. The CPU has sufficient headroom, as shown by the 86 FPS result at 1080p Low.

Q: What hardware would perform similarly to this combination?

A: For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS, Intel Core i9-11900KF, and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U all score within 0.5 percent of the Ryzen 5 7600. For the GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc A750 are within 0.1 percent of the Arc B570's average score.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values for the Medium preset at each playable resolution?

A: At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum FPS is 57. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum is 46 FPS, which falls below the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum is 34 FPS, making it non-playable.