Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator is notoriously demanding, and the recorded data for this combination of an AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and Intel Arc B390 paints a clear picture of its limitations. Across all tested resolutions and presets, the average frame rates consistently fall below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The measurements show a system that is heavily constrained, with the only near-playable result occurring at the lowest settings and resolution.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the performance is severely limited. With the High preset, the average FPS is 19. Dropping to Medium yields an average of 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. The Low preset improves the average to 33 FPS, while the Ultra preset matches the High preset at an average of 19 FPS. Notably, the min and max FPS are only recorded for the Medium setting, indicating that the other presets at this resolution may have less stable or less consistent frame times.

Moving to 2560x1440 (1440p), the results show a modest improvement but remain far from playable. The High preset averages 26 FPS, while the Low preset reaches an average of 45 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. The scaling from 4K to 1440p shows an improvement, but the ceiling is still low, preventing any setting from reaching a playable state.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the performance is the strongest of the three resolutions, yet still misses the 60 FPS target. The Low preset achieves an average of 56 FPS, coming closest to the playable threshold. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. The High preset averages 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. The data shows that this combination is only suitable for very low-fidelity, low-resolution play, and even then, it cannot sustain a consistent 60 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions and presets reveals a system where the GPU is the dominant limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390, with a recorded percentile ranking of 9 among all GPUs, is a very low-end part, and its influence is evident in the frame rate behavior. For flight simulators, which are known to be CPU-intensive, the Ryzen 7 5700G’s role is secondary to the GPU’s inability to render frames quickly.

The data shows a clear resolution dependency. As the resolution drops from 3840x2160 to 1920x1080, the average FPS increases for every preset. For example, at the Medium preset, the average FPS goes from 26 at 4K, to 35 at 1440p, to 43 at 1080p. This scaling pattern is the classic signature of a GPU bottleneck. The GPU has to process fewer pixels at lower resolutions, so the frame rate rises. If the CPU were the primary limiting factor, the frame rate would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU’s workload would be more consistent.

The role of the CPU is still present, but it is not the main obstacle. The Ryzen 7 5700G, with its 8 cores and Zen 3 architecture, is a capable processor. Its benchmark scores, such as 12,830.5 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, show it has raw power. However, the Intel Arc B390’s low performance figures, like its 1,482 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad, mean that the GPU is the gatekeeper. The simulation’s complex scenery, aircraft systems, and flight physics require significant CPU time, but the GPU must still produce the image. When the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU’s output, the frame rate is capped by the GPU.

The difference between the Low and Ultra presets at the same resolution also supports this. At 1080p, Low averages 56 FPS while Ultra averages 31 FPS. This is a 25 FPS drop, which is substantial but not as large as the resolution scaling. The preset change affects both CPU and GPU workload, but the resolution change only affects the GPU. The fact that resolution has a more dramatic effect than preset changes confirms the GPU is the bottleneck. If the CPU were limiting, the preset change would have a more pronounced impact since it alters draw calls and physics calculations.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database’s comprehensive testing of 3,714 system combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G and Intel Arc B390 ranks at 3,302. This places it firmly in the bottom tier, with only 412 other combinations outperforming it. The ranking reflects the severe GPU limitation, as the iGPU’s low performance drags down the entire system’s capability for this title.

The rank of 3,302 out of 3,714 is a percentile ranking of approximately 11. This means that about 89% of all tested systems achieve a higher score in this game. The data suggests that this particular setup is not suitable for the game, as the GPU is not designed for the heavy rendering workload of a flight simulator.

The CPU’s own ranking is much more respectable, at the 79th percentile among all CPUs. This contrast highlights the GPU bottleneck. The Ryzen 7 5700G is a competent processor, but the Intel Arc B390 is a major limiting factor. If the GPU were replaced with a more powerful discrete model, the system’s rank would improve drastically, as the CPU would have headroom to feed the GPU. The data in the database shows that the CPU performance is not the primary cause of this low rank.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database provides data on comparable hardware to help contextualize the components’ performance. For the CPU, the nearest rivals to the Ryzen 7 5700G are almost identical in average score. The Intel Core i9-9900K is 0.2% faster, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 is 0.4% slower, the Intel Core i5-14400T is 0.4% faster, and the Intel Core i7-1370P is 0.6% slower. This indicates that the Ryzen 7 5700G’s CPU performance is in a very tight cluster with these other processors, and a user would see minimal difference in CPU-bound tasks.

The GPU’s nearest rivals are far more illuminating. The Intel Arc B580, with a score of 1,482, is just 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, another 1.5% faster than the GeForce 800M, 2.5% faster than the GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% faster than the GT 710. These are all entry-level or older NVIDIA parts. This shows that the Intel Arc B580 offers a level of performance that is matched by some of the weakest dedicated GPUs from a decade ago. The performance differences between these GPUs are small, so a user with any of these would see a similar frame rate in this game.

If someone is looking for a system that performs similarly, they could swap the Ryzen 7 5700G for an Intel Core i9-9900K and expect almost identical CPU-bound results. However, the GPU is the defining component. Any system with an NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 or GT 625 OEM would likely produce very similar FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator, meaning they would also struggle to reach 60 FPS. The database indicates that the GPU is essentially the weakest link, and swapping it for another one in its performance class would not change the outcome.

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS at 1080p with the Low preset?

A: The average FPS is 56, which is the highest recorded for this combination in the database.

Q: Does the system reach 60 FPS at any resolution and preset?

A: No. The recorded data shows no resolution or preset combination that achieves an average FPS of 60, and the verdict lists no playable settings for any resolution.

Q: How does the CPU’s performance compare to the Intel Core i9-9900K?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700G is 0.2% slower than the Intel Core i9-9900K in the database’s average scores.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded?

A: The lowest average FPS is 19, which occurs at both 4K High and 4K Ultra settings.

Q: What is the frame range for the 1440p Medium preset?

A: The average FPS is 35, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40.

Q: How does the GPU rank compared to all other GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B580 is in the 90th percentile, meaning it performs worse than 90% of all GPUs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this combination of hardware cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The verdict by resolution states that there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and the highest average FPS recorded is 56 at 1080p Low, which falls short. Therefore, this PC is not a suitable system for this game if the expectation is a smooth 60 FPS experience.

The GPU is the primary reason for this failure. The Intel Arc B580 is simply too weak to render the complex scenes of a flight simulator at a high frame rate. The CPU is much more powerful than the GPU, but cannot compensate for the GPU’s deficiency. The overall rank of 3,302 out of 3,714 places this combo in the bottom 11% of tested systems, confirming its poor suitability.

For a game that demands both a strong CPU and a strong GPU, this combo is unbalanced. The Ryzen 7 5700G is a capable processor, but it is held back by the Intel Arc B580. A user would need to install a much more powerful discrete GPU to have any chance of reaching 60 FPS, even at 1080p. The current configuration is only suitable for low-detail, low-resolution gaming, and not for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the recorded data, no resolution can achieve a stable 60 FPS. The best settings for each resolution are those that come closest to the 60 FPS threshold, but they still fall short.

At 3840x2160, the best option is the Low preset, which yields an average FPS of 33. This is the only preset at this resolution that approaches 40 FPS, let alone 60. At 2560x1440, the Low preset also provides the highest average at 45 FPS. At 1920x1080, the Low preset provides the best average of 56 FPS, which is only 4 FPS away from the playable threshold.

The database’s verdict for this system lists “null” for the best settings and average FPS at the best settings for every resolution. This indicates that no setting combination met the 60 FPS playable requirement. Therefore, the “best” settings are the ones that provide the highest average FPS, even though they are not playable. The Low preset is consistently the most demanding preset that achieves the highest frame rate, but it still does not meet the playable threshold.