Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X paired with the Intel Arc B580 lands in the 2833rd position out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database’s ranking. That percentile position reflects a system that can handle the sim at 1080p and 1440p with adjusted settings, but it is not a top-tier performer for this title. The combo’s rank is heavily influenced by the GPU’s relative standing — the Arc B580 sits at the 68th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 9600X ranks at the 81st percentile among CPUs. This mismatch suggests the graphics card is the limiting factor in most scenarios, a pattern that becomes clearer when examining frame rates across resolutions and presets.

How This Combo Ranks

The 2833rd rank out of 3714 combos places this pairing in the 24th percentile of tested systems — roughly three-quarters of all recorded combinations deliver better average performance in this game. That is not a damning result, but it positions the combo as a mid-pack option rather than a high-flying one. The CPU’s strong benchmark profile (81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713) does not translate into top-tier gaming performance here because Microsoft Flight Simulator’s demands scale heavily with GPU throughput, especially at higher resolutions. The Arc B580’s 68th percentile GPU standing, with an average benchmark score of 23021, is the more decisive factor.

Breaking down the measured frames, the combo only cracks the 60 FPS playable threshold at 1080p and 1440p, and only on Low or Medium presets. At 4K, no setting reaches 60 FPS — the best result is Low at 56.8 FPS average, which still falls short. The verdict data confirms this: at 3840x2160, the playable settings list is empty, meaning there is no preset that maintains at least 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low and Medium are playable, with Medium hitting exactly 60 FPS average. At 1920x1080, the same two presets are playable, with Medium delivering 78 FPS average. This is a system that can run the sim respectably at mainstream resolutions, but it will not deliver high-refresh or high-detail experiences without compromises.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a clear shift in component responsibility as resolution changes. At 1080p, the CPU has more room to flex its capabilities — the Ryzen 5 9600X’s single-core strength (2183.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 342 in Cinebench R15 single-core) helps push frame rates higher at lower graphical loads. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 17 FPS (95 to 78), and from Medium to High costs another 21.7 FPS (78 to 56.3), indicating that each preset step adds meaningful GPU work. The CPU is not the bottleneck at this resolution; it is the Arc B580’s rasterization throughput that governs the scaling.

At 1440p, the GPU’s role becomes more pronounced. The drop from 1080p Medium to 1440p Medium is 18 FPS (78 to 60), a 23% reduction that shows the resolution scaling pressure landing squarely on the graphics card. At 4K, the GPU is unmistakably the dominant constraint — every preset falls below 60 FPS, with Ultra dropping to 31.1 FPS average. The scaling pattern between resolutions is steep: 1080p Low (95 FPS) to 1440p Low (74.3 FPS) is a 20.7 FPS loss, and 1440p Low to 4K Low (56.8 FPS) is another 17.5 FPS loss. This consistent degradation across resolution steps, regardless of preset, confirms that the Arc B580’s 12 GB memory and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth are being saturated at higher pixel counts, while the CPU’s workload remains relatively stable.

Preset scaling within each resolution also highlights GPU sensitivity. At 4K, the spread from Low (56.8) to Ultra (31.1) is 25.7 FPS — a 45% performance swing driven entirely by graphics settings. At 1440p, the same Low-to-Ultra spread is 30 FPS (74.3 to 44.3), and at 1080p it is 41.2 FPS (95 to 53.8). The widening gap at lower resolutions suggests that when the GPU has more headroom, the settings changes have more visible impact, but the CPU’s single-threaded performance (1253 in 3dmark single-thread) is never the limiting factor in this sim’s flight model and terrain rendering.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 5 9600X, based on average benchmark scores, are all AMD chips within a narrow band. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE scores 29656 (0.2% lower than the 9600X’s 29713), the Ryzen 7 7840H scores 29868 (0.5% higher), the Ryzen 7 5800XT scores 29879 (0.6% higher), and the Ryzen 7 8845HS scores 29955 (0.8% higher). For gaming purposes, any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically to the 9600X in Microsoft Flight Simulator — the deltaPct values are all under 1%, meaning the frame rate differences would be imperceptible. The 9600X’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for this sim, which does not appear to scale beyond a few threads based on the benchmark data.

On the GPU side, the Arc B580’s nearest rivals are a more eclectic mix. The AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23061 (0.2% higher than the B580’s 23021), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22895 (0.6% lower), the RTX 3080 scores 23172 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249 (1% higher). The RTX 3080’s presence in this list is notable — despite being a much older and higher-tier card, its average benchmark score is only 0.7% above the B580, suggesting that in this specific sim, the Arc B580’s architecture (Xe2-HPG, 13.67 TFLOPS FP32) delivers comparable throughput. However, the RTX 2080’s slightly lower score (0.6% below) indicates that the B580 is not universally faster than last-generation mid-range cards, and the RX 580 2048SP being essentially tied (0.2% higher) shows that driver optimization or specific game workloads can flatten the differences.

For a user considering this combo, swapping the CPU for any of the four rival chips would produce nearly identical frame rates — the 0.8% max delta is negligible. Swapping the GPU for an RTX 3080 would yield a marginal improvement (0.7% on average), but the RTX 2080 would be a slight downgrade (0.6%). The practical takeaway is that this combo’s performance envelope is tightly defined by its components’ benchmark positions, and nearby alternatives would not meaningfully change the playability verdicts at any resolution.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS recorded is 56.8 on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. High, Medium, and Ultra all fall further behind, with Ultra averaging 31.1 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings at this resolution.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 1440p?

A: Medium is the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS at 2560x1440, averaging exactly 60 FPS. Low also works (74.3 FPS), but High (42.4 FPS) and Ultra (44.3 FPS) both drop below the threshold.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 1440p?

A: On Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 78 at 1920x1080 to 60 at 2560x1440 — a 18 FPS loss. On Low settings, the drop is from 95 to 74.3 (20.7 FPS). The scaling penalty is consistent across presets, indicating GPU-bound behavior.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor at all resolutions. The Arc B580’s 68th percentile GPU ranking is lower than the Ryzen 5 9600X’s 81st percentile CPU ranking, and frame rate scaling between resolutions and presets tracks closely with graphics load. The CPU’s single-thread score (2183.5 in Cinebench R23) is sufficient to avoid bottlenecking.

Q: Does the combo reach 60 FPS at 1080p with High settings?

A: No. High settings at 1920x1080 average 56.3 FPS, just below the 60 FPS threshold. Only Low (95 FPS) and Medium (78 FPS) are playable at 1080p, while Ultra drops to 53.8 FPS.

Q: How does this combo compare to an RTX 3080 pairing?

A: The RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23172, which is 0.7% higher than the Arc B580’s 23021. In practical terms, swapping the B580 for an RTX 3080 would produce a negligible frame rate increase — likely 1-2 FPS — within the margin of measurement error.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured average FPS values are: Low 56.8, Medium 45.8, High 33.8, and Ultra 31.1. None reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 2.7 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset. The 4K results are uniformly below playable levels, making this resolution unsuitable for smooth gameplay regardless of settings.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low 74.3, Medium 60, High 42.4, and Ultra 44.3. Medium exactly hits the 60 FPS mark, making it the highest playable preset. Low provides headroom at 74.3 FPS, but High and Ultra both fall short. The unusual pattern where Ultra (44.3) slightly outperforms High (42.4) is within the margin of variance for a flight sim with dynamic scenery loads, but it does not change the verdict.

At 1920x1080, the results are: Low 95, Medium 78, High 56.3, and Ultra 53.8. Low and Medium are comfortably playable, with Medium offering the best balance at 78 FPS — 17 FPS above the threshold. High misses 60 FPS by 3.7 FPS, and Ultra is 6.2 FPS below. The 1080p results show the widest spread, from 95 FPS at Low to 53.8 FPS at Ultra, a 41.2 FPS range that gives users clear tuning options.

No min or max FPS values are recorded in the data, so the analysis relies solely on average frame rates. The lack of min/max values means stutter or frame-time spikes cannot be assessed, but the averages provide a consistent picture of overall performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there is no best setting — every preset fails to reach 60 FPS, and the verdict data explicitly lists an empty playable settings array. The highest average FPS is 56.8 on Low, but that still falls short of the playable threshold, so the recommendation is to avoid 4K or lower the resolution.

At 2560x1440, the best playable setting is Medium, which averages exactly 60 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that maintains playability, offering a balance between visual fidelity and frame rate. Low is also playable at 74.3 FPS, but Medium provides better graphics without dropping below the threshold. High and Ultra are not recommended, as they average 42.4 and 44.3 FPS respectively.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Medium, averaging 78 FPS. This provides a comfortable margin above 60 FPS while delivering more visual detail than Low (95 FPS). High (56.3 FPS) and Ultra (53.8 FPS) are both below the playable threshold, so Medium is the clear sweet spot at 1080p. The data shows that this combo’s optimal experience is at 1080p Medium, with 1440p Medium as a viable alternative for users prioritizing resolution over frame rate headroom.