Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The recorded data shows the top result is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 have dedicated video memory?

A: No. The database lists its memory size, type, and bus width all as "System Shared", with bandwidth described as "System Dependent". This means it relies on the system's main memory rather than having its own VRAM pool.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D compare to its closest CPU rival in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700X3D has an average benchmark score of 24709, which is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D (24728). It sits 0.5% below the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (24822) and 0.5% to 0.6% above the Intel Core i5-12450HX (24576) and Intel Core i5-11600 (24563).

Q: What is the GPU's percentile ranking among all tested graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B370 places in the 5th percentile, meaning it outperforms only about 5% of all GPUs in the database. Its Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184.

Q: Which resolution shows the largest FPS drop when moving from Low to Medium settings?

A: At 3840x2160, the average drops from 30 FPS at Low to 23 FPS at Medium, a loss of 7 FPS. At 2560x1440, the drop is 9 FPS (41 to 32), and at 1920x1080 it is 11 FPS (50 to 39). The 1080p resolution loses the most absolute frames.

Q: Are there any settings at any resolution that produce a minimum FPS above 60?

A: No. The highest recorded minimum FPS in the entire dataset is 33 FPS, observed at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. Every other listed setting either has no minimum recorded or falls below that figure.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The closest is Low at 30 FPS average. Medium averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27. High averages 18 FPS, while Ultra averages 17 FPS. None of these are near the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. Low delivers 41 FPS average, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium averages 32 FPS (minimum 27, maximum 36). High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and the next step is 9 FPS, which is substantial in gameplay terms.

At 1920x1080, Low produces 50 FPS average, the strongest result in the entire measurement set. Medium follows at 39 FPS (minimum 33, maximum 45). High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and least demanding preset, the system falls 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS target.

The data clearly indicates that this combination cannot sustain 60 FPS at any resolution, even at the lowest graphical preset. The best playable option, if one accepts lower frame rates, is 1080p Low at 50 FPS average.

CPU and GPU Roles

The CPU, AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D, is a strong performer in general benchmarks. Its 3DMark multi-threaded scores are 6764 for 16 threads and 6755 for max threads. Cinebench R23 results show 22366 multicore and 3157 singlecore. It ranks in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, indicating solid processing capability.

However, the GPU, Intel Arc B370, is the limiting factor. It ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168), all within 1.4% delta. These are legacy mobile and desktop parts from over a decade ago.

The scaling between resolutions confirms the GPU bottleneck. Moving from 1920x1080 Low (50 FPS) to 2560x1440 Low (41 FPS) costs 9 FPS, and moving to 3840x2160 Low (30 FPS) costs another 11 FPS. This linear degradation with pixel count is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's computational headroom cannot compensate for the GPU's limited fill rate and shading power.

Preset scaling reinforces this interpretation. At 1080p, going from Low to Medium drops 11 FPS, and Medium to High drops another 9 FPS. The GPU's 1280 shading units and 40 texture mapping units struggle with increasing shader complexity. The 20 raster output units constrain pixel throughput as resolution climbs.

The CPU role becomes more apparent in frame consistency. At 1080p Medium, the minimum FPS is 33 against an average of 39, a ratio of about 85%. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 27 against an average of 32, roughly 84%. This consistency suggests the CPU can feed frames steadily, but the GPU cannot push them out faster.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The recorded measurements say no, not at the 60 FPS threshold. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings at any resolution. Every preset at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080 fails to reach 60 FPS.

The closest result is 1080p Low at 50 FPS average. That is 83% of the target, but still falls short. At 1440p Low, the average is 41 FPS, and at 4K Low, it drops to 30 FPS. Medium settings at 1080p yield 39 FPS, which is below Low at the same resolution, confirming that visual quality trades come at significant frame rate cost.

For users who can tolerate lower frame rates, the system is technically operational. A flight simulator can be played at 30 FPS, though the experience will feel less smooth. The 4K Low result at exactly 30 FPS matches this minimum acceptable threshold, but just barely. Higher presets at any resolution produce averages in the high teens to low twenties, which would likely feel stuttery during flight maneuvers.

The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and its proximity to ancient ATI parts suggest this is not a configuration designed for modern simulation workloads. The CPU is capable, ranking in the 77th percentile, but it cannot overcome the GPU's fundamental throughput limitations. The verdict is unambiguous: this combo does not meet the 60 FPS playable standard at any tested setting.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160 (4K):

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

At 4K, the spread between the lowest and highest preset is 13 FPS. The minimum recorded frame at Medium is 20 FPS, which would produce noticeable judder during cloud-heavy scenes or low-altitude passes over dense urban areas.

2560x1440 (1440p):

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

The 1440p results show a wider performance gap between Low and Medium (9 FPS) compared to the gap between Medium and High (8 FPS), which is unusual. This suggests the Medium preset introduces a specific rendering feature that disproportionately impacts this GPU architecture.

1920x1080 (1080p):

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

At 1080p, the scaling is more linear: 11 FPS between Low and Medium, 9 FPS between Medium and High, and 2 FPS between High and Ultra. The minimum at Medium is 33 FPS, which is the highest minimum recorded across all resolutions and settings.

The data shows no maximum FPS recorded for Low, High, or Ultra presets, only for Medium. This means the frame time variance at those other presets could not be characterized, possibly due to measurement limitations rather than consistent performance.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 7.7% of all configurations in the database. The percentile ranking for the GPU alone is 5, while the CPU ranks at 77, illustrating the extreme imbalance.

To contextualize the rank: only 286 combos perform worse in this game. Given that the database includes many legacy and low-end parts, being near the bottom indicates this pairing is poorly suited for the simulator's demands. The CPU's strong general benchmark scores do not translate to in-game performance because the GPU cannot execute the rendering workload fast enough.

The combination rank of 3428 also suggests that even modest GPU upgrades would produce substantial FPS improvements, since the CPU has significant headroom. The 5700X3D's 96 MB of L3 cache and 8-core, 16-thread configuration are more than sufficient for flight simulation logic, but they are wasted when the GPU delivers only 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D scores 24728, just 0.1% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX scores 24822, 0.5% higher. The Intel Core i5-12450HX scores 24576, 0.5% lower, and the Intel Core i5-11600 scores 24563, 0.6% lower.

These CPUs would behave nearly identically in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU. The 7600X3D, being a 6-core part with 3D V-Cache, would likely show similar frame pacing. The 5900HX, a mobile chip, might exhibit slightly different thermal behavior in a laptop chassis, but its compute scores are effectively the same.

For the GPU, the nearest rivals are dramatically older parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, just 0.2% above the Arc B370's 1184. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower.

These comparisons are sobering. The Arc B370 performs at the level of graphics cards from roughly 2010 to 2012. In a flight simulator that was released in 2020, this means the GPU is operating several generations behind the software's expectations. Users coming from any of these older cards would see similar in-game results, with the Arc B370 offering no meaningful advantage.

The practical implication is that swapping the CPU to any of the four listed rivals would change FPS by less than 1%. Swapping the GPU to any listed rival would also change FPS by roughly 1% or less. The bottleneck is so severe that component substitutions within these performance bands would be imperceptible in actual gameplay.