Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B370 shows a consistent pattern: this combination struggles to maintain high frame rates across all tested resolutions and presets. At 3840x2160 (4K), the average frame rates range from 17 FPS at Ultra settings to 30 FPS at Low settings. The High preset delivers an average of 18 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. The Ultra preset at 4K produces the lowest recorded average in the entire dataset at 17 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the averages improve but remain well below the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings yield an average of 41 FPS, Medium produces 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS, High drops to 24 FPS, and Ultra settles at 23 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 18 FPS, showing a significant performance cost for higher visual fidelity.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the best result appears at Low settings with an average of 50 FPS. Medium settings average 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 9 FPS, indicating that each preset step carries a measurable performance penalty.

The data also reveals that minimum and maximum FPS values were only recorded for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 4K Medium, the frame time variance spans from 20 to 27 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range extends from 27 to 36 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS. These ranges suggest moderate frame pacing consistency, but the averages themselves remain far below the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a six-core, twelve-thread processor based on Zen 5 architecture with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores place it in the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713. In contrast, the Intel Arc B370 is an integrated-class GPU with a 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 1184 from a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This enormous gap in relative performance strongly indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck in this combination.

The resolution scaling data supports this conclusion. When moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 to 41, a reduction of 18%. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low settings, the average drops from 41 to 30, another 27% reduction. These proportional declines across resolutions are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly taxes the rendering pipeline.

For CPU-bound scenarios, we would expect less dramatic FPS changes across resolutions because the processor workload remains relatively constant. The fact that the FPS scales almost linearly with pixel count at every preset indicates that the Intel Arc B370 saturates well before the Ryzen 5 9600X reaches its limits. The CPU's multi-threaded benchmark scores, such as 17528.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 14438 in Geekbench multicore, demonstrate substantial headroom for handling the simulation logic of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The preset scaling further confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS (50 down to 28). At 1440p, that difference is 18 FPS (41 down to 23). At 4K, the difference is 13 FPS (30 down to 17). The shrinking absolute differences at higher resolutions suggest that even at Low settings, the GPU is already near its effective ceiling, leaving less room for preset-driven degradation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database lists nearest rivals for both components. For the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, the closest comparable CPUs in average benchmark score are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE with a score of 29656 (0.2% higher than the 9600X), the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H with 29868 (0.5% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT with 29879 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS with 29955 (0.8% lower). All four rivals score within 1% of the 9600X, meaning any of these processors would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in this game when paired with the same GPU.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest rivals are substantially older and weaker GPUs. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% lower). These deltas are all within 1.5%, indicating that the Arc B370 performs equivalently to a class of GPUs from roughly a decade earlier. Users familiar with any of those older cards should expect similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, confirming that this GPU is the limiting factor.

When considering the entire combination, a system with the Ryzen 5 9600X paired with any of those rival GPUs would deliver essentially the same FPS numbers as recorded here. Conversely, pairing the Arc B370 with any of the rival CPUs listed would also produce similar results, since the CPU has ample headroom. The bottleneck is unambiguous.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is clear: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable 60 FPS at any resolution or preset tested. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, meaning every configuration falls below the 60 FPS threshold.

At 4K, the best achievable average is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is exactly half of the required threshold. At 1440p, the best average is 41 FPS at Low settings, still 19 FPS short of 60. At 1080p, the best average is 50 FPS at Low settings, 10 FPS short of the target. Even the most favorable scenario in the entire dataset, 1080p Low, fails to reach 60 FPS.

The data shows no path to 60 FPS through preset adjustments alone. At 1080p, reducing from Medium to Low improves the average by 11 FPS, but the starting point is already too low. The simulation's complexity, combined with the Arc B370's limited compute resources, prevents this combination from achieving smooth frame rates. Users targeting 60 FPS would need to consider a significantly more powerful GPU.

FAQ

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

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Does lowering settings from Ultra to Low double the frame rate at any resolution?

A: At 4K, the average goes from 17 FPS at Ultra to 30 FPS at Low, which is nearly double. At 1440p, it goes from 23 FPS at Ultra to 41 FPS at Low, an increase of 78%. At 1080p, it goes from 28 FPS at Ultra to 50 FPS at Low, an increase of 79%.

Q: Are there any playable settings above 60 FPS?

A: No. The verdictByResolution data shows no playable settings at any resolution, meaning all tested configurations fall below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark score?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184, while its nearest rivals score between 1168 and 1192, with deltas ranging from -0.7% to +1.4%. All are within a narrow performance band.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the minimum and maximum FPS were recorded. At 4K, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 1440p, it is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1080p, it is 33 to 45 FPS. The ranges are relatively tight, suggesting stable frame pacing despite low averages.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The FPS scaling across resolutions matches GPU-bound behavior.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X with Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 7.7% of all systems in the database. This low ranking is consistent with the GPU's weak benchmark position; the Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all integrated or legacy discrete parts that would similarly struggle.

The CPU's strong relative performance (81st percentile) does little to boost the overall ranking because the game's frame rate is dictated by the GPU. The recorded FPS numbers across all nine tested configurations illustrate this: none reach 60 FPS, and the best case is 50 FPS at 1080p Low. For context, a combo that ranks in the top quartile would typically deliver playable frame rates at most presets, but this system falls far short.

The rank of 3428 out of 3714 means that approximately 286 other tested combinations perform worse than this pairing. However, the practical takeaway is that this combination is not viable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS threshold, regardless of its position relative to other low-end systems.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database provides no playable settings for any resolution, as all averages fall below 60 FPS. However, the best performing preset at each resolution can be identified from the measured data.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers the highest average at 30 FPS. This is the only configuration at 4K that reaches 30 FPS; Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset again provides the best result with an average of 41 FPS. Medium follows at 32 FPS, High at 24 FPS, and Ultra at 23 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 50 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across the entire dataset. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS.

For users who must run the game on this hardware, Low settings are mandatory at all resolutions. Even then, the frame rates will remain below the 60 FPS target, and the experience will feel noticeably sluggish, particularly during dense scenery areas or complex weather conditions that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to stress. The data suggests that only a hardware upgrade, specifically a more capable discrete GPU, would change this outcome.