Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

For this combination of an AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and an Intel Arc B370, the recorded data shows that hitting a consistent 60 FPS is not possible at any resolution or preset. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and every measured average falls below that mark. However, the practical question for a builder is which settings deliver the least painful experience at each resolution, and the database provides clear guidance.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the most demanding preset that stays closest to 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 30 FPS. High and Medium average 18 FPS and 23 FPS respectively, while Ultra drops to 17 FPS. Since none of these reach the 60 FPS target, Low is the only reasonable choice if you insist on 4K, but the experience will be far from smooth. The data also records a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS at Medium, which shows how fragile even that modest preset is at this resolution.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the situation improves slightly but remains below the threshold. Low averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a recorded range of 27 to 36 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. Again, no preset clears 60 FPS. Low is the best option for maintaining the highest average, but even then, the gap to 60 FPS is substantial (19 FPS short). Medium might be tempting for visuals, but the minimum of 27 FPS suggests stutter-prone scenes.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the best average is again on Low at 50 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS with a range of 33 to 45 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The 50 FPS on Low is the closest any preset comes to the 60 FPS target across all resolutions, but it still misses by 10 FPS. For a flight simulator where smooth camera panning over dense terrain matters, 50 FPS is marginally acceptable, but it is not a locked experience.

Given these numbers, the verdict is unambiguous: there is no "best settings" that achieves 60 FPS. The database lists no playable settings for any resolution. If forced to choose, Low at 1080p is the only preset that approaches playability, but it fails the defined threshold. For 1440p and 4K, even Low falls well short, making those resolutions impractical for this hardware.

CPU and GPU Roles

The recorded data reveals a clear bottleneck split between the CPU and GPU, and it shifts with resolution. The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X is a capable 8-core, 16-thread processor from the Zen 3 architecture, with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz and a 65 W TDP. Its benchmark scores place it in the 79th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 27578. The Intel Arc B370, on the other hand, is a low-power integrated graphics solution (25 W TDP, IGP form factor) that sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad test. That percentile gap is enormous and tells the story: this is a CPU that can handle modern games, paired with a GPU that is not designed for heavy 3D workloads.

Looking at the FPS scaling across resolutions, the GPU's limitations become obvious. Dropping from 4K to 1440p on Low settings improves the average from 30 FPS to 41 FPS, a gain of 37%. Dropping further to 1080p on Low improves it to 50 FPS, another 22% gain. This strong positive scaling with lower resolution indicates that the GPU is the primary constraint at every resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would stay roughly flat as resolution drops, because the CPU workload (draw calls, physics, simulation logic) does not change with resolution. Instead, the data shows the GPU struggling more at higher pixel counts, which is classic GPU-bound behavior.

However, the CPU is not irrelevant. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy single-thread and multi-thread workloads, and the Ryzen 7 5700X's single-thread score of 921 in 3DMark and 1499 in Cinebench R23 single-core suggest it has enough headroom to feed the Arc B370. At 1080p Low, the 50 FPS average indicates that the CPU is not holding the GPU back, because the GPU is still the weaker link. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to plateau around the same value regardless of resolution, but that is not what the data shows. The FPS rises consistently as resolution falls, meaning the GPU is the limiting factor at all three resolutions.

Comparisons with the CPU's nearest rivals reinforce this. The Ryzen 7 5700X scores within 0.2% to 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-12600K, AMD Ryzen 7 5800, AMD Ryzen 5 7600X, and Intel Core Ultra 5 125H. Those rivals would behave almost identically in this game, meaning the CPU choice is not the deciding factor. The GPU, however, has nearest rivals like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, which are ancient parts. That comparison makes it clear that the Arc B370 is in a completely different performance class, one that cannot handle this simulator at 60 FPS.

In practical terms, if you were to upgrade this system, the GPU would be the first component to replace. The CPU has ample headroom to drive a much faster discrete GPU. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the CPU can push the Arc B370 to 50 FPS, but a stronger GPU would likely push past 60 FPS with the same CPU. At 1440p and 4K, the GPU is so far behind that even a modest discrete GPU upgrade would yield massive gains.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database shows that no preset at any resolution (3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080) reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The highest average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings. The verdict lists no playable settings for any resolution.

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p if I want the highest average frame rate?

A: Low settings at 1920x1080 yield an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest recorded average for this combination. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. None of these reach 60 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% slower), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% slower), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% slower), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% faster). These are all very old integrated or entry-level discrete GPUs.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X a good CPU for this game?

A: The CPU is not the limiting factor. Its average benchmark score is 27578, placing it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. It performs within 0.3% of rivals like the Intel Core i5-12600K and AMD Ryzen 5 7600X. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU, as shown by the large FPS gains when lowering resolution.

Q: What happens if I lower the resolution from 4K to 1080p on Low settings?

A: The average FPS improves from 30 FPS at 3840x2160 Low to 41 FPS at 2560x1440 Low, then to 50 FPS at 1920x1080 Low. This confirms the GPU is the bottleneck, because FPS scales strongly with pixel count.

Q: Is there any preset that stays above 30 FPS at 1440p?

A: Yes, Low at 2560x1440 averages 41 FPS, and Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS. High and Ultra both average below 25 FPS. None reach 60 FPS, but Low and Medium stay above the 30 FPS mark on average.

Similar Performance Alternatives

If you are considering this specific CPU-GPU pairing, the database's nearest rival lists provide useful comparisons for what similar hardware would deliver.

For the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, the nearest rivals are all within a 0.3% performance delta. The Intel Core i5-12600K matches it exactly with an average score of 27578 (0% delta). The AMD Ryzen 7 5800 is 0.2% slower, the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X is 0.2% faster, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is 0.3% faster. In practical terms, any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU. Since the CPU is not the bottleneck in this system, swapping the 5700X for any of these rivals would change the FPS by less than a single frame per second, which is within measurement noise.

The GPU situation is different. The Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are drastically older parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 is 0.2% slower, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 is 0.5% slower, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M is 0.7% slower, and the AMD FirePro M2000 is 1.4% faster. These GPUs were entry-level parts from over a decade ago, and their performance is essentially identical to the Arc B370. If you have a system with any of those GPUs, you should expect the same FPS numbers as recorded here. Conversely, if you are looking for an upgrade path, any modern discrete GPU in the database's higher percentiles would be a massive improvement, but the data does not include such parts in this comparison.

The practical takeaway is that this system's performance is defined by the GPU, not the CPU. If you were to build a similar PC, choosing a different CPU from the rival list (like the Ryzen 5 7600X or Core i5-12600K) would not change the outcome. The bottleneck remains the Arc B370, and the measured FPS would stay the same. On the other hand, if you swapped the GPU for something more capable, the CPU would have enough headroom to support much higher frame rates, given its 79th percentile standing.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database records exact average FPS values for each resolution and preset combination. Note that minimum and maximum values are only provided for Medium settings across all resolutions; other presets only have averages.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Ultra: 17 FPS average
• High: 18 FPS average
• Medium: 23 FPS average, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS
• Low: 30 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Ultra: 23 FPS average
• High: 24 FPS average
• Medium: 32 FPS average, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS
• Low: 41 FPS average

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Ultra: 28 FPS average
• High: 30 FPS average
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS
• Low: 50 FPS average

These numbers show a consistent pattern: every step down in resolution yields a meaningful FPS gain, and every step down in settings (from Ultra to Low) yields another gain. The largest single jump occurs when moving from 4K Low (30 FPS) to 1440p Low (41 FPS), a 37% improvement. The next jump, from 1440p Low to 1080p Low, adds 9 FPS (22%). Within each resolution, the gap between Ultra and Low is roughly 13 to 22 FPS, with the biggest gap at 1080p (28 to 50 FPS).

The Medium presets provide the only recorded minimum and maximum values, which give a sense of frame time consistency. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. At 1440p Medium, it is 27 to 36 FPS, a 9 FPS spread. At 1080p Medium, it is 33 to 45 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. The wider spread at lower resolutions suggests that the GPU is not the only source of variability; the CPU's simulation workload likely creates occasional hitches. However, even the maximum values at Medium settings (27 FPS at 4K, 36 FPS at 1440p, 45 FPS at 1080p) fall short of 60 FPS, so there is no scenario where this system reaches the playable threshold.

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 clear: there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Every preset averages below 60 FPS.

The closest this system gets to a playable experience is at 1920x1080 on Low settings, where the average is 50 FPS. That is 10 FPS short of the target, and it represents the absolute best case. If you are willing to tolerate sub-60 FPS gameplay, then this is the configuration you would choose. However, even that setup will likely drop below 50 FPS in dense areas or during complex weather simulations, given that the Medium preset at 1080p has a recorded minimum of 33 FPS.

At 1440p, the best you can achieve is 41 FPS on Low, which is 19 FPS below the threshold. At 4K, the best is 30 FPS on Low, which is half the target frame rate. The data does not support any claim of smooth performance at higher resolutions.

The root cause is the Intel Arc B370. This is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, and its performance percentile (5th) puts it in the same league as GPUs from over a decade ago. The Ryzen 7 5700X is not the problem; it is a strong mid-range CPU that sits in the 79th percentile and matches modern rivals like the Core i5-12600K. But no CPU can compensate for a GPU that is this far behind the demands of a flight simulator with dense photogrammetry and dynamic weather.

For a builder, the verdict is straightforward: this system is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator if you require 60 FPS. It could be used for a casual, low-settings 1080p experience, but even then, frame rates will fluctuate. The only real solution is to replace the GPU with a discrete model that ranks much higher in the database. The CPU has enough headroom to support such an upgrade, so you would not need to replace the processor. But as configured, this PC fails the playability test at every resolution.