Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D and Intel Arc B570 shows a steep performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers an average of 86 FPS on Low settings, dropping to 67 FPS on Medium, 50 FPS on High, and 48 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset at 1080p shows a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS, indicating that even the average sits comfortably above the playable threshold while the worst-case frame rate dips close to it.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages fall noticeably: Low produces 69 FPS, Medium 54 FPS (with min/max of 46/62), High 41 FPS, and Ultra 39 FPS. The Medium preset at this resolution exposes the first real instability — the 46 FPS minimum suggests that busy areas with dense scenery can push the system below the 60 FPS target even though the average remains respectable.

At 3840x2160, the picture becomes demanding. Low averages 51 FPS, Medium 40 FPS (min/max 34/46), High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. No preset at 4K reaches the 60 FPS threshold; even Low falls 9 FPS short of it. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 23 FPS, showing that the Ultra preset's additional rendering load costs nearly half the Low preset's frame rate. The data indicates this hardware combination is firmly mid-range for this title: it handles 1080p and 1440p with playable settings, but 4K requires sacrifices that still do not quite reach smoothness.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 2988 out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower third of the database. This percentile position is striking given the individual components: the CPU sits at the 77th percentile among all processors, and the GPU at the 65th percentile among all graphics cards. The discrepancy suggests that Microsoft Flight Simulator's demands are not evenly balanced across hardware — the game's simulation-heavy workload favors the strong CPU, but the GPU becomes the limiting factor at higher resolutions.

The rank of 2988 means roughly 80% of tested combos outperform this pairing in this specific game. That is a harsh verdict for a CPU that ranks in the top quarter of all processors. The Intel Arc B570's 65th percentile GPU standing is solid, but Flight Simulator appears to punish the combination more than typical titles would. The data implies that the game's rendering of vast landscapes and detailed aircraft models places extraordinary strain on graphics throughput, and the B570's 10 GB frame buffer and 160-bit memory bus may be constraining performance in ways that synthetic benchmarks do not fully capture.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions reveals which component dominates. From 1080p Low to 1440p Low, the average drops from 86 FPS to 69 FPS — a 17 FPS decline for a 1.78x increase in pixel count. From 1440p Low to 4K Low, the average falls from 69 to 51 FPS — an 18 FPS decline for a 2.25x increase in pixel count. This near-linear scaling with pixel count indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at Low settings across all resolutions.

However, the preset scaling tells a different story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS (86 to 67), and from Medium to High costs another 17 FPS (67 to 50). At 1440p, the Low-to-Medium drop is 15 FPS (69 to 54), and at 4K it is 11 FPS (51 to 40). The diminishing impact of preset increases at higher resolutions suggests that the CPU's simulation work becomes relatively more important as resolution climbs — the GPU is so saturated at 4K that additional preset detail does not change the frame rate as much.

The Ryzen 7 5700X3D's 96 MB of shared L3 cache is likely beneficial for Flight Simulator's complex scenery and aircraft systems, which involve significant data reuse. The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores (Cinebench R23 multi-core of 22366) suggest it can handle the game's simulation threads without becoming the primary constraint. Yet the data shows that at no resolution does the combo achieve 60 FPS on High or Ultra, indicating the GPU holds the combo back from fully exploiting the CPU's capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on 1080p?

A: Yes, at Low and Medium presets. The Medium preset averages 67 FPS (min 57, max 77), while Low averages 86 FPS. High and Ultra fall short at 50 and 48 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 1440p?

A: Low is the only preset that clears 60 FPS, averaging 69 FPS. Medium averages 54 FPS (min 46, max 62), which drops below the threshold during demanding scenes.

Q: Is 4K playable with this hardware?

A: No. Even Low averages only 51 FPS at 3840x2160, and Medium drops to 40 FPS (min 34, max 46). No preset reaches the 60 FPS threshold at this resolution.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700X3D has an average benchmark score of 24709. The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D scores 24728 (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). The differences are negligible in practice.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20556. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile scores 20534 (0.1% higher), the Intel Arc A750 scores 20582 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20480 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 20662 (0.5% lower). These rivals would behave nearly identically in this game.

Q: What percentile does the GPU rank among all graphics cards?

A: The Intel Arc B570 sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU ranks at the 77th percentile among all CPUs. Despite these respectable individual standings, the combo ranks in the 20th percentile among tested system combinations for this game.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, which averages 67 FPS (min 57, max 77). This is the sweet spot for 1080p — it provides significantly better visuals than Low (86 FPS) while maintaining a comfortable average above the threshold, though the 57 FPS minimum warns that occasional dips below 60 are possible in dense areas.

At 2560x1440, only Low clears the 60 FPS bar, averaging 69 FPS. Medium falls to 54 FPS on average, so the data clearly indicates that 1440p users must accept Low settings for smooth gameplay. The jump from 1080p Medium to 1440p Low represents a substantial visual downgrade, but the 69 FPS average provides headroom that Medium does not.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best option is Low at 51 FPS, which is playable for some users but does not meet the 60 FPS threshold used in this analysis. If 4K is a requirement, this hardware combination cannot deliver smooth performance regardless of settings.

The Verdict

The data answers the question directly: this system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with significant caveats. At 1920x1080, it clears 60 FPS on Low and Medium presets, making 1080p gaming viable with acceptable visual quality. At 2560x1440, only Low achieves 60 FPS, and at 3840x2160, no preset reaches the threshold. The verdict by resolution states: 1080p is playable with Low and Medium, 1440p is playable only with Low, and 4K is not playable at any setting.

For users targeting 1080p, this combo is a reasonable choice — Medium settings at 67 FPS average provides a good balance. For 1440p users, the system's capability is marginal, requiring Low settings. For 4K, the hardware is simply insufficient. The combination of a strong CPU and mid-range GPU creates a system that excels at lower resolutions but struggles as pixel count rises. The 2988 rank out of 3714 combos places this pairing in the lower tier for this specific game, despite the components' respectable individual standings. This suggests that users considering this hardware for Flight Simulator should plan for 1080p gaming or be prepared to accept significant visual compromises at higher resolutions.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Ryzen 7 5700X3D's nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average benchmark score, meaning any of them would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game. The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D (24728, 0.1% higher) offers the closest match, followed by the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (24822, 0.5% higher). The Intel Core i5-12450HX (24576, 0.5% lower) and Intel Core i5-11600 (24563, 0.6% lower) would also behave almost indistinguishably. Notably, the 5900HX is a mobile processor, yet its benchmark score is nearly identical to the desktop 5700X3D, suggesting that Flight Simulator's performance is not highly sensitive to the specific CPU choice within this performance band.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B570's nearest rivals are similarly clustered. The Intel Arc A750 (20582, 0.1% lower) is the closest match — a logical pairing given the same manufacturer and architecture family. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 0.1% higher) and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662, 0.5% lower) would also deliver comparable performance, though the R9 M390X's 0.5% delta is small enough that real-world differences would be imperceptible. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480, 0.4% higher) rounds out the list, though its workstation-oriented design makes it an unlikely choice for gaming.

For users considering this system, swapping the CPU for any of these rivals would produce essentially unchanged frame rates. The same applies to GPU swaps within this group. What matters more is the resolution target: all of these components cluster in a performance range that suits 1080p gaming but struggles beyond it. The data suggests that moving to a significantly stronger GPU would be the only meaningful upgrade path for higher-resolution play, while CPU changes within this band would yield minimal gains.