Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a highly unusual combination in the database: a capable eight-core desktop processor driving an integrated-class graphics solution. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its demanding rendering of terrain and weather, the recorded data shows that this system struggles to reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The measured frames per second across all tested configurations fall well short of that target, indicating that the graphics component is the decisive bottleneck. This analysis examines the benchmark results, the roles of each component, and what settings, if any, can make the game playable.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database shows that at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56, which is below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Every other resolution and preset combination yields lower average frame rates, with the highest recorded average being 56 FPS.

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

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 45 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 43 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 has an average benchmark score of 25,517. Its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon D-2752TER, scores 25,530, which is 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 7640U scores 25,485, 0.1% lower, while the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H scores 25,550, 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825U scores 25,446, 0.3% lower.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1,482. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463, which is 1.3% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1,460, 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446, 2.5% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443, 2.7% lower.

Q: What is the difference in FPS between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. This represents a 25 FPS drop when moving from the least to the most demanding preset.

Q: What is the frame rate stability like at Medium settings?

A: The database records minimum and maximum FPS only for Medium settings. At 1920x1080, the average is 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. At 2560x1440, the average is 35 FPS, ranging from 30 to 40. At 3840x2160, the average is 26 FPS, ranging from 22 to 30.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a clear pattern: the Intel Arc B390 GPU is the limiting factor in this system. The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 7 5700 with 8 cores and 16 threads, is a strong desktop processor that places in the 78th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its synthetic scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 20,655 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 24,303, indicate substantial processing power for simulation logic and physics calculations. However, the game's rendering demands are handled by the GPU, and the Arc B390's performance profile is far below what the CPU can feed.

The GPU's benchmark results are stark. The Intel Arc B390 scores 1,482 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 and GT 520MX, which are entry-level parts from over a decade ago. This is an integrated graphics solution with 1,536 shading units and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz, but its memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning it shares system memory rather than having dedicated VRAM. For a flight simulator that streams vast landscapes, this is a severe limitation.

Looking at the FPS scaling across resolutions, the impact of the GPU is evident. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 56. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, it drops to 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160 with Low settings, it falls to 33 FPS. This scaling is consistent with a GPU that is overwhelmed by increasing pixel counts. The CPU's role becomes secondary: even though the processor can handle the game's logic, the GPU cannot produce frames fast enough. The result is that the system is entirely graphics-bound at all tested settings.

Preset scaling further confirms this. At 1920x1080, moving from Low to Medium reduces the average FPS from 56 to 43, a 23% drop. From Medium to High, it drops from 43 to 33, another 23% reduction. From High to Ultra, it goes from 33 to 31, a smaller 6% drop, suggesting that at Ultra, the GPU is already saturated and additional settings have diminishing returns. The same pattern holds at 2560x1440: Low yields 45 FPS, Medium 35, High 26, and Ultra 25. At 3840x2160, the numbers are 33, 26, 19, and 19 for Low, Medium, High, and Ultra respectively.

The data indicates that the CPU is not the primary constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect FPS to remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the processor would struggle to maintain frame times regardless of pixel count. Instead, the FPS drops significantly as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU bottleneck. The Ryzen 7 5700's 3DMark 16-thread score of 6,628 and single-thread score of 901 suggest it can handle the game's single-threaded rendering calls, but the Arc B390 simply cannot execute them quickly enough. In practical terms, the CPU's role is to prepare draw calls and simulation data, but the GPU fails to keep up, capping performance at 56 FPS even at the lowest settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this specific combination of CPU and GPU for Microsoft Flight Simulator at 3,302 out of 3,714 tested combos. This places the configuration in the bottom 11% of all systems tested for this game. The rank reflects the severe imbalance between the CPU and GPU: the Ryzen 7 5700 is a high-end processor, but the Arc B390 is an integrated GPU that performs at the level of budget graphics cards from a decade ago.

To contextualize the rank, consider the GPU's percentile versus all GPUs: 9th. This means that 91% of GPUs in the database outperform the Arc B390. The CPU's percentile versus all CPUs is 78th, meaning it outperforms 78% of CPUs. The combination of a top-quartile CPU with a bottom-decile GPU results in a system that is overwhelmingly limited by its graphics solution. The rank of 3,302 out of 3,714 is a direct consequence of this mismatch.

The measured FPS data reinforces this ranking. At no point does any preset or resolution reach the 60 FPS threshold. The closest is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which is still 4 FPS short. The verdict by resolution in the database is clear: no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080, because the playable threshold is defined as 60 FPS or higher. The system is not capable of achieving that at any configuration tested.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 7 5700 has nearest rivals with nearly identical average benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon D-2752TER scores 25,530, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 7640U scores 25,485, also 0.1% lower. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600H scores 25,550, 0.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 7 5825U scores 25,446, 0.3% lower. These processors would all behave similarly in Microsoft Flight Simulator from a CPU perspective, meaning that swapping to any of them would not change the FPS results, as the GPU remains the bottleneck.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B390's nearest rivals are all NVIDIA integrated or entry-level parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1,463, 1.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1,460, 1.5% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1,446, 2.5% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1,443, 2.7% lower. These GPUs are all within a few percentage points of the Arc B390's performance, so a system using any of them would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game. The practical implication is that the Arc B390 is not a unique outlier; it belongs to a class of extremely low-end graphics solutions that cannot handle modern flight simulators at acceptable frame rates.

The data also shows that the Arc B390's performance is so low that even the CPU's high scores cannot compensate. A user upgrading from a GT 710 to an Arc B390 would see a marginal improvement, but the game would remain unplayable at 60 FPS. Conversely, pairing the Ryzen 7 5700 with a far more powerful GPU would transform the system's capabilities, but that is not this tested combo.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records FPS for four presets at each of three resolutions: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. The playable threshold is 60 FPS. Based on the measured data, no preset at any resolution achieves 60 FPS. Therefore, there is no "best" setting that meets the playable threshold. However, for users who accept lower frame rates, the highest average FPS at each resolution is as follows:

At 3840x2160, the best performance comes from the Low preset, which averages 33 FPS. The Medium preset averages 26 FPS, while High and Ultra both average 19 FPS. The Low preset also provides the least demanding load on the GPU, but it still falls far short of 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset again offers the highest average at 45 FPS. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, which is noticeable, but neither reaches playability.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, which is the closest to the 60 FPS threshold in the entire dataset. Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The 56 FPS result is tantalizingly close, but the database's verdict is definitive: 60 FPS is the threshold, and this system does not cross it.

For users who must play the game regardless of frame rate, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a 43 FPS average, which is playable in a casual sense but subject to stutters in dense scenery. The minimum FPS for Medium at 1080p is 37, which could cause noticeable hitches during rapid camera movements or when flying over complex terrain.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The answer is no, not at the 60 FPS threshold that defines playability in this database. The verdict by resolution is explicit: at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, there are no playable settings. The highest average FPS recorded is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 4 FPS short of the required 60 FPS. The system cannot cross that line at any resolution or preset tested.

The root cause is the Intel Arc B390. This GPU, with its 9th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 1,482, is fundamentally unsuited for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 7 5700, is more than capable, as evidenced by its 78th percentile ranking and strong multi-core scores. But the GPU's integrated-class performance, with system-shared memory and a texture rate of 120 GTexel/s, creates an insurmountable bottleneck. Even at the lowest settings, the GPU cannot generate frames fast enough to reach 60 FPS.

For users considering this configuration, the data suggests that the Arc B390 is the primary limitation. Upgrading the GPU to a discrete model with even moderate performance would likely allow the Ryzen 7 5700 to push frame rates above the 60 FPS threshold, especially at 1920x1080 with Medium or High settings. However, as tested, this combo is not playable for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The recorded FPS values, the GPU's low percentile, and the absence of any playable settings in the verdict all point to the same conclusion: this system falls short of the minimum requirement for a smooth flight simulation experience.