Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the Intel Arc B580 presents a compelling mid-range combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title notoriously demanding on both processor and graphics hardware. The measured data reveals a system that can handle the game respectably at mainstream resolutions, though it struggles to maintain high frame rates at 4K. This analysis breaks down the specific performance characteristics, optimal settings, and how this combo stacks up against other tested configurations.

Best Settings per Resolution

The benchmark data defines 60 FPS as the playable threshold, and the most demanding preset that maintains this frame rate varies significantly by resolution.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system cannot achieve a playable experience at any of the four tested presets—Low, Medium, High, or Ultra. The highest average frame rate recorded is 54 FPS on Low settings, which falls short of the 60 FPS target. Consequently, there is no "best playable setting" at this resolution; the verdict data confirms that no settings are playable.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the situation improves considerably. The data shows that both Low and Medium presets clear the 60 FPS bar. The Medium preset is the most demanding setting that remains playable, delivering an average of 60.9 FPS. This is the recommended choice for users prioritizing visual quality while maintaining smooth gameplay at 1440p.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the system has ample headroom. The Medium preset again emerges as the most demanding playable option, but it achieves a much higher average of 75.7 FPS. Low settings push performance even further to 94.8 FPS, but Medium offers a better balance of visual fidelity and performance for this resolution.

CPU and GPU Roles

Understanding which component limits performance is crucial for optimizing the experience. The data suggests a shifting bottleneck depending on resolution and settings.

At 4K, the GPU is clearly the primary constraint. The frame rates are uniformly low across all presets, ranging from 29.8 FPS on Ultra to 54 FPS on Low. The relatively small gap between Low and Ultra (a difference of 24.2 FPS) indicates that even at the lowest settings, the Intel Arc B580 is heavily taxed by the pixel throughput required at 3840x2160. The CPU's role is diminished here, as the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough to become the limiting factor.

At 1440p, the balance begins to shift. The difference between Low (74.6 FPS) and Medium (60.9 FPS) is 13.7 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High (45.9 FPS) is a more substantial 15 FPS drop. This non-linear scaling suggests that while the GPU is still the main bottleneck at higher presets, the CPU has enough headroom to handle the lower-end settings, allowing the GPU to stretch its legs. The system is more balanced at this resolution.

At 1080p, the CPU starts to play a more significant role, particularly at lower settings. The Low preset hits 94.8 FPS, which is a substantial increase over the 1440p Low result of 74.6 FPS. This 20.2 FPS gain indicates that the Ryzen 5 8400F can keep up with the GPU's output at lower resolutions. However, on Ultra settings, the frame rate drops to 52.6 FPS, showing that the GPU again becomes the limiting factor as graphical complexity increases. The scaling between resolutions at the same preset—for example, High going from 45.9 FPS at 1440p to 55.9 FPS at 1080p—points to a GPU-bound scenario, but the CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to avoid being a severe bottleneck at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average frame rates recorded for each resolution and settings combination.

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :---------- |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 29.8 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 33.8 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 43.8 |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 54.0 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 44.5 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 45.9 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 60.9 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 74.6 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 52.6 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 55.9 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 75.7 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 94.8 |

Notably, the data does not include minimum or maximum frame rate values, only averages. This means the analysis focuses on sustained performance rather than frame time consistency. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 42.2 FPS, highlighting how much headroom is available on lower presets. At 1440p, the gap between the same two presets is 30.1 FPS, and at 4K it narrows to 24.2 FPS, reinforcing the GPU-bound nature of higher resolutions.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K with playable frame rates?

A: No. At 3840x2160, none of the four tested presets—Low, Medium, High, or Ultra—achieve an average frame rate of 60 FPS or higher. The best result is 54 FPS on Low settings, which is below the playable threshold.

Q: What is the highest quality setting that maintains 60 FPS at 1440p?

A: The Medium preset is the most demanding playable option at 2560x1440, delivering an average of 60.9 FPS. The Low preset also clears the threshold with 74.6 FPS, but Medium offers superior visual quality.

Q: How does the system perform at 1080p on Ultra settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate is 52.6 FPS. This is below the 60 FPS playable threshold, meaning the Ultra preset is not recommended for a smooth experience at this resolution.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more of a bottleneck for this game?

A: The data indicates the Intel Arc B580 GPU is the primary bottleneck, especially at 4K and at higher presets across all resolutions. The CPU's role becomes more apparent at 1080p with lower settings, where frame rates scale up significantly, but the GPU still limits performance on Ultra.

Q: What is the performance difference between Low and Medium settings at 1080p?

A: The difference is 19.1 FPS, with Low achieving 94.8 FPS and Medium achieving 75.7 FPS. This suggests that users can gain a substantial frame rate boost by dropping from Medium to Low, but Medium still provides a playable experience.

Q: Does the system meet the 60 FPS target at any resolution with High settings?

A: No. At 1080p, High yields 55.9 FPS; at 1440p, it yields 45.9 FPS; and at 4K, it yields 33.8 FPS. None of these results reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database, this specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Arc B580 achieves a rank of 2844 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the pack, indicating that while it is far from the top performers, it is not among the weakest either. The percentile ranking for the CPU alone is 77th, meaning it outperforms 77% of all tested CPUs. The GPU's percentile is 68th. The combo's rank of 2844 suggests that the pairing's performance in this specific game is slightly below what the individual component percentiles might imply, highlighting the demanding nature of Flight Simulator on the entire system.

The data shows a significant drop-off from the top ranks, which are likely occupied by high-end CPUs paired with flagship GPUs. However, this combo still manages to deliver playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p on Medium settings, which is a meaningful achievement for a mid-range configuration.

The Verdict

Based on the measured data, this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with important caveats regarding resolution and settings.

At 3840x2160, the answer is no. The system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any preset, with the best average being 54 FPS on Low. Users with a 4K display would need to significantly lower resolution scaling or accept sub-60 FPS performance.

At 2560x1440, the answer is yes, with limitations. The system is playable on Low (74.6 FPS) and Medium (60.9 FPS) presets. The Medium preset is the recommended maximum for a smooth experience, as High (45.9 FPS) and Ultra (44.5 FPS) fall below the threshold.

At 1920x1080, the answer is a definitive yes. The system runs the game well on Medium (75.7 FPS) and Low (94.8 FPS) presets. High (55.9 FPS) is borderline, and Ultra (52.6 FPS) is not playable. For a consistent 60+ FPS experience, Medium is the clear choice.

The Ryzen 5 8400F proves to be a capable partner for the Arc B580 in this title, providing enough processing power to avoid severe bottlenecks at mainstream resolutions. The Intel GPU, while not a powerhouse at 4K, delivers solid performance at 1080p and 1440p on moderate settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals for both components provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this system.

For the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, its closest performance peers are all within a 0.4% margin of its average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F is nearly identical, with a delta of 0.2% and an average score of 24964. The Intel Core i7-11850H and Intel Core i7-13620H are also extremely close, with deltas of 0.3% and 0.4% respectively. The AMD EPYC 9474F is slightly ahead at -0.4% delta. Users with any of these CPUs would expect very similar CPU-bound performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

For the Intel Arc B580, the closest rivals in terms of average benchmark score are a mixed group. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP is nearly identical, with a delta of -0.2% and a score of 23061. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 is slightly behind at 0.6% delta. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is also listed as a near rival, with a delta of -0.7%, despite being a higher-tier card in most other contexts. The NVIDIA P106-100 completes the list with a -1% delta. This suggests that the Arc B580's performance profile in this game aligns closely with these cards, meaning users upgrading from an RTX 2080 or RTX 3080 might see similar frame rates, while those with an RX 580 2048SP would experience a significant boost.

It is crucial to note that these rival comparisons are based on overall average benchmark scores, not specific game performance. The actual frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator could vary, but the data indicates these components fall into a similar performance tier.