Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

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

A: No. The database shows no settings preset reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings.

Q: What is the best performing preset at 1920x1080?

A: Low settings produce 56 FPS average, which is the highest FPS recorded for this combination across all tested configurations. Medium follows at 43 FPS, High at 33 FPS, and Ultra at 31 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to similar hardware?

A: The Intel Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% faster).

Q: How does the CPU compare to similar processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X sits in the 81st percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% faster), AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% slower), AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% slower), and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.8% slower).

Q: Is there any resolution where the system approaches 60 FPS?

A: The closest result is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440, Low settings yield 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160, Low settings yield 33 FPS.

Q: Does the verdictByResolution data show any playable settings?

A: No. The database lists empty playable settings arrays for all three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080), confirming that no preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a system heavily constrained by the graphics processor. The Intel Arc B390, with its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs, produces frame rates that drop sharply as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 Low, the system delivers 56 FPS; at 2560x1440 Low it falls to 45 FPS; and at 3840x2160 Low it drops to 33 FPS. This scaling pattern, a reduction of roughly 20% from 1080p to 1440p and another 27% from 1440p to 4K, points to pixel throughput as the dominant bottleneck.

The CPU side tells a different story. The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with a strong single-thread score of 1253 in 3dmark_single_thread and 2183.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core. Flight simulators are known for heavy single-threaded simulation workloads, and this processor has ample headroom in that regard. The data indicates the processor is not the limiting factor in these measurements.

Resolution scaling further confirms the GPU-bound nature. At Low settings, raising resolution from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 cuts average FPS from 56 to 45, a 20% reduction. Moving from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 reduces FPS from 45 to 33, a 27% reduction. These are consistent with pixel-count increases of approximately 78% and 125% respectively, though the FPS drops are proportionally smaller, suggesting some CPU involvement in maintaining minimum frame pacing.

Settings scaling at a fixed resolution also reveals the GPU constraint. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium drops average FPS from 56 to 43 (a 23% reduction), and from Medium to High it drops to 33 (another 23% reduction). The gap between High and Ultra is smaller, from 33 to 31 FPS, indicating diminishing returns from the most demanding preset. At 3840x2160, Low produces 33 FPS while Ultra produces 19 FPS, a 42% reduction, showing that the GPU struggles more with additional visual complexity at higher pixel counts.

The pattern is clear: the GPU is the binding constraint at every resolution and preset combination. The CPU's high percentile ranking and strong single-thread performance suggest it could drive higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU. The measured data shows no configuration where the system comes within 4 FPS of the 60 FPS target, and the closest approach occurs only at the lowest resolution with the least demanding settings.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The highest recorded average is 33 FPS at Low settings. Medium produces 26 FPS, while High and Ultra both produce 19 FPS. The database's verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for this resolution, so there is no "best" preset that satisfies the playability threshold.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. Low settings produce 45 FPS, Medium produces 35 FPS, High produces 26 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold, and the verdictByResolution data confirms an empty playable settings list.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS, the closest any configuration comes to 60 FPS. Medium produces 43 FPS, High produces 33 FPS, and Ultra produces 31 FPS. Even the best case, 56 FPS at Low, falls short of the 60 FPS playable threshold by 4 FPS. The verdictByResolution field again lists no playable settings.

The most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS does not exist for this combination. The data shows that every resolution and settings pairing falls below the playable threshold, with the best result being 56 FPS at 1920x1080 Low.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The measured data says no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdictByResolution field shows empty playable settings arrays for all three tested resolutions: 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. No preset at any resolution clears 60 FPS.

The closest result is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the threshold. At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS at Low settings, and at 3840x2160, the best result is 33 FPS at Low settings. The system falls progressively further behind the target as resolution increases.

For users who can tolerate frame rates below 60 FPS, the system is technically capable of running the game. Low settings at 1920x1080 provide a playable experience in the sense of being above 30 FPS, and Medium settings at 1920x1080 also stay above 30 FPS with 43 FPS average. However, the database's playability standard is explicitly set at 60 FPS, and this combination does not meet it anywhere.

The GPU is the clear limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390 ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are legacy NVIDIA parts from the GT 500 and GT 600 series, as well as the GeForce 800M. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 81st percentile and is unlikely to be the reason for these frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the system records 33 FPS average on Low settings, 26 FPS average on Medium with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS, 19 FPS average on High, and 19 FPS average on Ultra. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with recorded min and max values, showing a narrow band between 22 and 30 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce 45 FPS average. Medium produces 35 FPS average with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS. High produces 26 FPS average, and Ultra produces 25 FPS average. The Medium preset again shows the only min and max values, ranging from 30 to 40 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 56 FPS average, the highest figure in the entire dataset. Medium produces 43 FPS average with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS. High produces 33 FPS average, and Ultra produces 31 FPS average.

The pattern across all resolutions is consistent: Low is always the fastest preset, followed by Medium, then High, with Ultra either matching or slightly trailing High. At 3840x2160, High and Ultra are identical at 19 FPS average. At 2560x1440, High and Ultra are close at 26 and 25 FPS respectively. At 1920x1080, High and Ultra are similarly close at 33 and 31 FPS.

The min and max data, available only for Medium presets, shows that the 3840x2160 Medium configuration ranges from 22 to 30 FPS, the 2560x1440 Medium ranges from 30 to 40 FPS, and the 1920x1080 Medium ranges from 37 to 50 FPS. These ranges indicate that even the most consistent preset at each resolution leaves no room for reaching the 60 FPS target.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all combinations in the database, a position consistent with the GPU's low performance percentile.

The ranking reflects the severe GPU bottleneck. The CPU alone, at the 81st percentile among all processors, would suggest a much higher placement if paired with adequate graphics hardware. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking, however, drags the combined result down substantially.

The gap between this combo and the top of the database is large. With 3714 total combos and a rank of 3302, there are 412 combinations that perform worse. This puts the system in the lower tail of the distribution, though not at the absolute bottom.

The measured FPS data supports this ranking. No configuration reaches 60 FPS, and the best case is 56 FPS at 1080p Low. The combination's position in the database is a direct consequence of the GPU's inability to maintain playable frame rates in this flight simulator.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X, based on average benchmark scores, are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% faster), AMD Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% slower), AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% slower), and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.8% slower). Any of these processors would produce nearly identical CPU-side behavior in this game, since the performance differences are all under 1%.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc B390 are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1.5% faster), NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (2.7% faster). These GPUs would deliver frame rates within a few percent of the Arc B390 in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning none of them would reach the 60 FPS threshold either.

A system pairing the Ryzen 5 9600X with any of these rival GPUs would produce results nearly indistinguishable from the measured data. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Ryzen 7 5800XT, would not change the outcome because the bottleneck is entirely on the graphics side. Similarly, swapping the Arc B390 for a GT 710 or GT 520MX would keep the system in the same performance tier, with all configurations falling short of playable frame rates.

The database shows that this combination sits in a performance neighborhood defined by low-end GPUs and mid-range to high-end CPUs. The CPU is competitive with other modern processors, but the GPU is grouped with legacy entry-level parts. This mismatch explains why the system cannot reach 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator at any tested resolution or settings preset.