Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of an AMD Ryzen 7 5700 with the Intel Arc B370 produces a consistent picture across all measured resolutions: this system falls short of the 60 FPS playability threshold in every tested configuration. The data shows a steep performance curve as resolution increases, with the gap between settings presets widening at higher pixel counts.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are uniformly below playable levels. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the highest recorded figure at this resolution. Medium manages only 23 FPS on average, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS, indicating tight frame pacing but at an unacceptably low level. High drops further to 18 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, showing that even substantial settings reductions cannot rescue this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the situation improves but remains firmly below the 60 FPS target. The Low preset reaches an average of 41 FPS, which is the standout figure here. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settles at 24 FPS, and Ultra at 23 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 18 FPS, a larger gap than at 4K, which suggests the CPU is beginning to flex its capabilities as the GPU load decreases.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the best-case scenario emerges. The Low preset produces an average of 50 FPS, the highest recorded number in the entire dataset. Medium follows at 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High drops to 30 FPS, and Ultra falls to 28 FPS. The Low-to-Ultra spread at 1080p is 22 FPS, the widest observed across all resolutions, which indicates that at this resolution the GPU is the primary constraint, and the CPU has more headroom to respond to settings changes.

The frame time data, where available, shows that Medium presets at all three resolutions maintain relatively narrow bands. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS; at 1440p Medium, it is 27 to 36 FPS; and at 1080p Medium, it is 33 to 45 FPS. This consistency suggests that the combination does not suffer from severe stuttering, but rather a steady, systemic limitation in raw throughput.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this specific CPU-GPU pairing at rank 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8 percent of all configurations recorded, a position that reflects the Arc B370's significant performance constraints rather than the CPU's capabilities.

The Intel Arc B370's individual benchmark score is 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which puts it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, a 0.2 percent difference), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, a 0.5 percent difference), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, a 0.7 percent difference), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, a 1.4 percent difference). These are all legacy or low-end parts, which underscores how far behind the current GPU field the Arc B370 sits.

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700, in contrast, is a much stronger component. Its average benchmark score is 25517, placing it at the 78th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest CPU rivals are the Intel Xeon D-2752TER (25530, a 0.1 percent difference), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U (25485, a 0.1 percent difference), the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H (25550, a 0.1 percent difference), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5825U (25446, a 0.3 percent difference). The CPU is competitive with mid-range mobile and workstation parts, but it is paired with a GPU that cannot translate that processing power into playable frame rates in this simulator.

The implication is clear: the combo rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU is a solid performer in the 78th percentile, but the GPU's 5th percentile standing creates a massive bottleneck. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy CPU simulation workloads, the Ryzen 7 5700 would normally be an asset, but the Arc B370 cannot keep up with the rendering demands at any resolution tested.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict for this system is unambiguous: no resolution and no preset combination reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold. The database records no playable settings for any resolution, and the best settings field is null for all three.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that stays closest to 60 FPS is Low, which averages 30 FPS. This is exactly half the target frame rate, and the visual compromise required to achieve even this figure is substantial. Medium is the next tier down at 23 FPS, and the gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 7 FPS, which is significant but not enough to justify the visual downgrade if the goal is playability, since neither option achieves it.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset again provides the highest average at 41 FPS. This is 19 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. Medium drops to 32 FPS, a 9 FPS difference from Low. The data shows that even at 1440p, the system cannot approach playable frame rates without dropping to the lowest settings, and even then it falls well short.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset reaches 50 FPS, which is the best result in the entire dataset. This is 10 FPS below the threshold. Medium delivers 39 FPS, High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is an 11 FPS drop, which is the largest single-settings penalty observed anywhere in the measurements. This suggests that the Low preset is where the system finds its most efficient operating point, but it is still insufficient.

In practical terms, there is no "best settings" recommendation because no configuration clears the playability bar. The user is left choosing between sub-60 FPS experiences at varying quality levels, with the best case being 1080p Low at 50 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database records no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average FPS measured is 50 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best performance this combo achieves in the game?

A: The best recorded result is 50 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 39 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it at the 5th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168). These are all within a 1.4 percent margin of the Arc B370.

Q: How does the CPU rank relative to other processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 has an average benchmark score of 25517, placing it at the 78th percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-2752TER (25530), the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U (25485), the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H (25550), and the AMD Ryzen 7 5825U (25446).

Q: What is the frame rate range at Medium settings across resolutions?

A: At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS with an average of 23. At 2560x1440 Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS with an average of 32. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS with an average of 39.

Q: How does the system rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8 percent of all recorded combinations.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 7 5700 and the Intel Arc B370, with the GPU being the dominant constraint at all resolutions. The evidence lies in the scaling patterns across resolution and settings changes.

When resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the average FPS drops by 9 FPS at Low settings (from 50 to 41) and by 7 FPS at Medium (from 39 to 32). When resolution increases further from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160, the drop is 11 FPS at Low (from 41 to 30) and 9 FPS at Medium (from 32 to 23). This consistent degradation as pixel count rises is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. The Arc B370, with only 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 20 ROPs, simply cannot fill frames fast enough as the render target grows.

The settings scaling tells a complementary story. At 1080p, the difference between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS (50 to 28). At 1440p, the same comparison yields 18 FPS (41 to 23). At 4K, it narrows to 13 FPS (30 to 17). This narrowing gap at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU is so saturated at 4K that reducing quality settings has diminishing returns. The GPU is the bottleneck, and no amount of settings reduction can compensate for its raw throughput limitations.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent at lower resolutions and higher settings. At 1080p Ultra, the system still manages 28 FPS, which is only 2 FPS below the 1080p High result of 30 FPS. This small delta suggests that at Ultra settings, the CPU is doing more work on simulation and draw calls, but the GPU remains the limiting factor. The Ryzen 7 5700, with 8 cores and 16 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, has ample processing power for the flight model and scenery systems, but it cannot force the Arc B370 to render faster.

The 3DMark scores reinforce this conclusion. The GPU's Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile, while the CPU's average benchmark score of 25517 places it in the 78th percentile. The CPU is a mid-to-high-range part, while the GPU is a low-end part. In a simulation game that taxes both components, the weaker link determines the outcome, and the Arc B370 is decisively the weaker link at every resolution tested.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unequivocal: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates. The verdict by resolution is negative for all three tested resolutions, with no playable settings recorded at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

At 4K, the best case is Low settings at 30 FPS, which is exactly half the 60 FPS threshold. The experience would be a slideshow by any modern gaming standard, with Ultra dropping to 17 FPS. At 1440p, the best case improves to 41 FPS on Low, but this is still 19 FPS below the target, and the visual quality at Low settings in a flight simulator is severely compromised, degrading the experience of reading instruments and spotting terrain. At 1080p, the best case is 50 FPS on Low, which is the closest this system comes to playability, but it still falls 10 FPS short.

The fundamental issue is the GPU. The Intel Arc B370 is a 25-watt integrated-class part with system-shared memory, and its benchmark position at the 5th percentile among all GPUs places it in the company of parts from over a decade ago. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 is a capable CPU in the 78th percentile, but it is paired with a graphics solution that cannot deliver the rendering performance required by one of the most demanding games in the database.

For the user, the conclusion is straightforward: this configuration is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution or settings preset. The game requires either a substantially more powerful discrete GPU or a significant reduction in expectations to below 60 FPS, which the database does not categorize as playable. The data shows that the system ranks 3428 out of 3714 combos, and the performance ceiling is 50 FPS at 1080p Low. That is the maximum this pairing can achieve, and it is not enough.