Microsoft Flight Simulator

The pairing of an AMD Ryzen 7 5700G with an Intel Arc B370 is an unusual one for a demanding flight simulator, and the recorded data reflects that tension sharply. The Ryzen 7 5700G sits in the 79th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with eight Zen 3 cores, sixteen threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12830.5. The Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated Xe3-LPG graphics solution on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake silicon with a 25 W TDP, and it lands in just the 5th percentile of all GPUs measured. Microsoft Flight Simulator, released in 2020, is one of the heaviest simulation workloads in the database, and the measurements show the GPU side of this combination is simply overwhelmed at every tested resolution and preset.

Measured FPS Breakdown

Starting at 1920x1080, the most forgiving configuration in the dataset, the numbers already fall well short of the 60 FPS playability threshold. Low preset manages an average of 50 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High drops to 30 FPS, and Ultra slides further to 28 FPS. Even the absolute best case, 1080p Low, misses the threshold by a full 20 percent, and the Medium frame-time spread (33 to 45) suggests visible stutter rather than smooth delivery.

At 2560x1440 the picture degrades in a consistent, predictable pattern. Low averages 41 FPS, Medium 32 FPS (minimum 27, maximum 36), High 24 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra has nearly vanished at this resolution, which is a classic signature of a GPU fully saturated: once the graphics solution is the bottleneck, raising detail further costs almost nothing because it was already running at capacity.

At 3840x2160, the results are effectively unusable for real-time flying. Low averages 30 FPS, Medium 23 FPS (minimum 20, maximum 27), High 18 FPS, and Ultra 17 FPS. Note the near-linear collapse from 1080p Low (50 FPS) to 2160p Low (30 FPS): a 40 percent frame-rate loss from a fourfold increase in pixel count is actually a shallow decline in relative terms, but the absolute floor is what matters here, and 30 FPS at the lowest preset on a 4K panel is far from the playability line.

Best Settings per Resolution

The honest answer, according to the verdict data, is that there are none. The database applies a playable threshold of 60 FPS, and at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 the list of playable settings is empty for every resolution. No preset, not even Low at 1080p, clears the bar.

If forced to identify the "best available" configurations short of the threshold, 1080p Low at 50 FPS is the closest approach, followed by 1440p Low at 41 FPS and 2160p Low at 30 FPS. But the database verdicts are unambiguous: bestSettings is null across all three resolutions, and avgFpsAtBest is correspondingly empty. This is a combination with no 60 FPS configuration on record for this title.

How This Combo Ranks

Within Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, this CPU and GPU pairing ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations. That places it in the bottom few percent of configurations measured for this game, which is a striking result given that the CPU half of the equation is genuinely strong. The Ryzen 7 5700G scores 6629 in the 16-thread 3DMark CPU test, 5648 at 8 threads, and 1758 at 2 threads, and it posts a Geekbench multi-core score of 9950. Its nearest CPU rivals, the Intel Core i9-9900K (avgScore 27097, within 0.2 percent), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 (26936, 0.4 percent), the Intel Core i5-14400T (27166, 0.4 percent), and the Intel Core i7-1370P (26900, 0.6 percent), are all capable processors in the same performance neighborhood.

The ranking therefore tells a clear story: the 3428th position is not a CPU problem. It is the GPU dragging the pairing down. The Arc B370's sole recorded graphics benchmark is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, and its nearest rivals are telling: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, within 0.2 percent), the ATI Radeon HD 5570's desktop sibling the Radeon HD 5770 (1190, 0.5 percent), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, 0.7 percent), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4 percent behind). These are, by any measure, very old and very modest graphics solutions, and the Arc B370 benchmarks within a rounding error of them. Pairing a modern mid-tier CPU with graphics silicon in that class produces exactly the ranking seen here.

FAQ

Q: Can the Ryzen 7 5700G and Arc B370 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. At no tested resolution, from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, and at no preset from Low to Ultra, does the average frame rate reach 60 FPS. The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1080p Low.

Q: What is the best result this combination achieves in the game?

A: 1920x1080 at the Low preset, averaging 50 FPS. The next best is 2560x1440 Low at 41 FPS, then 3840x2160 Low at 30 FPS.

Q: How consistent are frame rates at Medium settings?

A: The database records minimum and maximum figures for Medium: at 1080p the range is 33 to 45 FPS around a 39 FPS average, at 1440p it is 27 to 36 around 32, and at 2160p it is 20 to 27 around 23. The spreads are wide enough to imply noticeable frame-time inconsistency.

Q: Does upgrading settings from High to Ultra change much?

A: Very little, which points to a fully GPU-bound system. At 1080p the drop is 30 to 28 FPS, at 1440p it is 24 to 23, and at 2160p it is 18 to 17. When detail increases barely affect frame rate, the GPU is already at its limit.

Q: Is the CPU the weak link here?

A: The data says no. The Ryzen 7 5700G sits in the 79th percentile of all CPUs in the database and benchmarks within a fraction of a percent of the Intel Core i9-9900K on average. The Arc B370, in the 5th GPU percentile, is the limiting component.

Q: How does this combination rank against other hardware tested in this game?

A: It ranks 3428 out of 3714 combinations, placing it near the very bottom of the recorded field for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling data makes the division of labor unusually easy to read. From 1080p to 1440p, the Low preset falls from 50 to 41 FPS, an 18 percent decline; from 1440p to 2160p it falls from 41 to 30, a further 27 percent decline. If the CPU were the limiter, resolution changes would barely move the frame rate, since pixel count does not materially change CPU-side simulation work in most titles. The substantial, near-monotonic response to resolution instead indicates the GPU is the primary constraint at every tested setting.

The preset scaling reinforces this. At each resolution, the High and Ultra results are nearly identical (30 vs 28, 24 vs 23, 18 vs 17), meaning the graphics solution cannot render meaningfully more frames even when the workload is eased only marginally. Meanwhile the Ryzen 7 5700G, with its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 1494 Cinebench R23 single-core score, is in principle well fed for the simulation side of a flight simulator, a genre known for CPU-heavy world streaming. But in this configuration the CPU never gets the chance to be the bottleneck, because the Arc B370, drawing 25 W with 1280 shading units and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, saturates long before the processor does. One caveat worth noting: because the Arc B370 uses system-shared memory over the CPU's dual-channel DDR4 platform with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, the CPU's memory subsystem is also quietly involved in feeding the GPU, a coupling that shared-memory graphics inherently creates.

The Verdict

No, this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the database's 60 FPS playability standard. The verdict data shows zero playable settings at 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160. The best case on record, 1080p Low at 50 FPS average, still misses the threshold, and every other configuration falls further behind, down to a low of 17 FPS at 4K Ultra. The game technically launches and renders, and a patient pilot willing to accept sub-60 frame rates could technically fly at 1080p Low, but by the measured standard this combination does not clear the bar anywhere. The root cause is equally clear: a 5th-percentile integrated graphics solution paired with a 79th-percentile CPU creates a severe imbalance for one of the most GPU-demanding simulators in the database.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the recorded rivals, the realistic expectation is that hardware near the Arc B370's performance level will behave essentially the same in this title. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (within 0.2 percent), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5 percent), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7 percent), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4 percent behind) all benchmark within a point and a half of the Arc B370's average score, so systems built around those graphics solutions would land in the same sub-threshold territory in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

On the CPU side, swapping the Ryzen 7 5700G for any of its nearest rivals, the Intel Core i9-9900K, AMD Ryzen AI 7 445, Intel Core i5-14400T, or Intel Core i7-1370P, all of which sit within 0.6 percent of its average benchmark score, would not meaningfully change the outcome either. The data implies that in this GPU-bound configuration, the CPU choice is nearly irrelevant: any processor in that performance tier paired with an Arc B370-class graphics solution will produce comparable, below-threshold results in this game. For a different outcome in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the variable that matters is the graphics solution, not the processor sitting next to it.