Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the flight simulation genre, and the data for this AMD Ryzen 7 5700G + Intel Arc B570 combination shows a clear pattern: playability is heavily dependent on resolution and preset selection. At 3840x2160, the Ultra preset delivers an average of 28 FPS, which falls far below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Dropping to High improves the average to 30 FPS, and Medium raises it to 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. The Low preset at 4K achieves 51 FPS on average, but even this best-case 4K scenario remains below the 60 FPS target. The data indicates that 4K is not viable for a smooth experience with this hardware.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains constrained. The Ultra preset averages 39 FPS, while High reaches 41 FPS. Medium produces a more usable 54 FPS average, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. The Low preset is the only 1440p option that clears the 60 FPS line, averaging 69 FPS. This suggests that at 1440p, users must sacrifice visual fidelity to achieve smooth framerates. The jump from Medium to Low at 1440p represents a 15 FPS improvement, which is a substantial gain for a single preset step.

At 1920x1080, the hardware finally shows its strengths. The Low preset averages 86 FPS, which is the highest score across any resolution and setting combination. Medium follows at 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS — this stays above the 60 FPS threshold on average, though the minimum dips slightly below it. High averages 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The 1080p data reveals a steep drop-off: Medium to High costs 17 FPS, while High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS. This non-linear scaling implies that the High and Ultra presets are hitting a similar bottleneck, likely related to rendering complexity rather than raw throughput.

Comparing across resolutions, the scaling behavior is telling. At Low settings, 1080p delivers 86 FPS, 1440p delivers 69 FPS, and 4K delivers 51 FPS. That is a 20% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and another 26% reduction from 1440p to 4K. At Medium settings, the averages are 67, 54, and 40 FPS respectively — the 4K Medium result shows a 40% deficit versus 1080p Medium. These deltas suggest that the GPU is the primary limiter at higher resolutions, as the framerate drops proportionally with pixel count.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rival data provides context for where this combo sits in the broader hardware landscape. For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G has an average benchmark score of 27051, placing it at the 79th percentile among all CPUs. Its closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-9900K, which scores 27097 — a delta of -0.2%, meaning the 5700G is essentially tied with that older flagship. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 scores 26936, putting the 5700G 0.4% ahead. The Intel Core i5-14400T scores 27166, which is 0.4% ahead of the 5700G, and the Intel Core i7-1370P scores 26900, trailing by 0.6%. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the 5700G's CPU performance is squarely in the middle of a tight cluster.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, placing it at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534, a delta of 0.1% — essentially identical performance. The Intel Arc A750 scores 20582, with the B570 trailing by -0.1%. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480, putting the B570 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662, with the B570 0.5% behind. What is striking here is that the B570's nearest rivals include both a mobile RTX 3070 and a desktop Arc A750, plus two much older professional/mobile GPUs. This suggests the B570 occupies an unusual performance tier — competitive with mid-range GPUs from different generations.

The practical implication for Microsoft Flight Simulator is that users considering this combo should expect behavior similar to an RTX 3070 Mobile or Arc A750. Those GPUs, paired with a CPU in the i9-9900K class, would likely produce framerates within a few percentage points of what the 5700G + B570 delivers. The deltaPct values are all under 1%, so the experience would be nearly indistinguishable. For 1080p Medium at 67 FPS, a user switching to an RTX 3070 Mobile system might see 66.9 or 67.1 FPS — the difference is negligible.

FAQ

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

A: No. The data shows no playable settings at 3840x2160. The best 4K result is the Low preset at 51 FPS average, which falls below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Ultra averages 28 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Medium averages 40 FPS — all below the threshold.

Q: What is the best 1080p preset that stays above 60 FPS?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 delivers 67 FPS average, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. This is the most demanding preset that clears the 60 FPS threshold at 1080p. The Low preset is faster at 86 FPS, but Medium offers higher visual quality while maintaining playable framerates.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5700G compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The 5700G scores 27051 on average benchmarks, placing it at the 79th percentile. It is essentially tied with the Intel Core i9-9900K (27097, delta -0.2%) and slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 445 (26936, delta 0.4%). The Intel Core i5-14400T is 0.4% faster, and the Intel Core i7-1370P is 0.6% slower.

Q: What GPU performance tier does the Intel Arc B570 belong to?

A: The B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556, at the 65th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, delta 0.1%), followed by the Intel Arc A750 (20582, delta -0.1%). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and AMD Radeon R9 M390X are within 0.5% either way.

Q: Is the 1440p Low preset playable for this game?

A: Yes. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the combo averages 69 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold. However, this is the only playable 1440p preset — Medium averages 54 FPS, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS, all below the threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower half of all tested systems, which is consistent with the limited playability at higher resolutions.

The Verdict

The data answers clearly: this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 67 FPS average, which clears the 60 FPS playability threshold — this is the sweet spot. The Low preset at 1080p averages 86 FPS, providing a comfortable margin for demanding scenes. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset is playable, averaging 69 FPS. The 1440p Medium preset averages 54 FPS, which is below the threshold, and High and Ultra are even lower at 41 and 39 FPS respectively. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS — the best case is Low at 51 FPS, and Ultra sinks to 28 FPS.

For users targeting a smooth experience, 1080p Medium is the recommended configuration. The minimum FPS of 57 at 1080p Medium is close to the threshold, so users in dense urban areas or heavy weather might see brief dips. The Low preset at 1080p offers a more robust margin with 86 FPS average. At 1440p, Low is the only viable option, and even that requires accepting significant visual compromises. 4K is not a playable resolution for this hardware.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2988 out of 3714 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 20% of all configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a low ranking, but it requires interpretation: the game is notoriously demanding, and many tested combos likely include high-end CPUs and GPUs far above this pairing. The 79th percentile CPU ranking and 65th percentile GPU ranking suggest that each component individually is mid-tier, but the combination does not boost either component's standing. The rank implies that most other tested systems — roughly 80% — would deliver better performance in this specific game.

The gap between the combo's component percentiles and its game-specific rank is informative. The CPU sits at the 79th percentile among all CPUs, yet the game rank is much lower. This indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily GPU-bound at the tested settings, or that the B570's 65th percentile GPU performance drags the overall result down. The measured FPS data supports this: at 1080p Low, the system hits 86 FPS, which is respectable, but at 4K Ultra it falls to 28 FPS, suggesting the GPU cannot sustain high resolution workloads.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 67 FPS. The minimum of 57 FPS dips below the threshold, so users who prioritize consistency might prefer Low at 86 FPS. For the purposes of this analysis, Medium is the answer because it meets the average threshold. At 2560x1440, the only preset clearing 60 FPS is Low, averaging 69 FPS. There is no room for negotiation here — Medium falls to 54 FPS, so Low is the sole playable option. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS, so there is no best setting — the verdict is unplayable by the 60 FPS standard.

The jump from 1080p Medium to 1440p Low represents a significant trade-off: users lose visual quality in exchange for a higher pixel count. The 1440p Low average of 69 FPS is only 2 FPS higher than 1080p Medium's 67 FPS, yet the visual downgrade is substantial. This suggests that if a user has a 1440p monitor, they would be better served by running the game at 1080p Medium with upscaling, assuming the display supports it, rather than accepting 1440p Low.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a nuanced division of labor between the Ryzen 7 5700G and the Arc B570. At 1920x1080, the scaling from Low (86 FPS) to Medium (67 FPS) to High (50 FPS) to Ultra (48 FPS) shows a 44% drop from Low to Ultra. This large spread indicates that at 1080p, the GPU is the primary bottleneck — as settings increase, the GPU's workload grows, and the framerate falls accordingly. The CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads, with a 3.80 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clock, are sufficient to feed the GPU at this resolution, as evidenced by the high Low-preset framerate.

At 2560x1440, the pattern shifts slightly. The drop from Low (69 FPS) to Medium (54 FPS) is 22%, and from Medium to High (41 FPS) is another 24%. The Ultra preset (39 FPS) is only 5% lower than High. This flatter curve at the top end suggests that both CPU and GPU are being pushed, but the GPU is still dominant. The 5700G's single-thread score of 899 in 3DMark and 1494 in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate adequate per-core performance for the game's simulation logic, but the B570's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is the limiting factor for pixel rendering.

At 3840x2160, the GPU's role becomes even more pronounced. The Low preset (51 FPS) to Medium (40 FPS) drop is 22%, but the High preset (30 FPS) is 25% below Medium, and Ultra (28 FPS) is nearly identical to High. The 4K results cluster tightly between 28 and 51 FPS across all presets, a range of only 23 FPS. This compression suggests that at 4K, the GPU is completely saturated — increasing settings from High to Ultra barely changes the framerate because the GPU is already maxed out. The CPU, meanwhile, has enough headroom that its performance ceiling is not reached at any resolution.

Comparing the resolutions, the CPU's influence is most visible at 1080p Low, where the 86 FPS result shows the GPU is not the limiter — the CPU can push the frame rate higher than at any other resolution. At higher resolutions, the GPU's workload scales with pixel count, and the framerate drops proportionally. The data implies that for this game, the Arc B570 is the component that determines playability, while the Ryzen 7 5700G provides sufficient processing power to avoid becoming the bottleneck at 1080p and 1440p. At 4K, the GPU is so overwhelmed that the CPU's capabilities are irrelevant to the final framerate.