Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded data shows a narrow range of performance across all presets. Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra is only 13 FPS, which indicates that the graphics workload at 4K overwhelms the rendering pipeline regardless of how much visual detail is reduced.

At 2560x1440, the results improve but remain below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Low settings reach 41 FPS on average. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings drop to 24 FPS, while Ultra falls to 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from further reducing settings once High is already selected.

At 1920x1080, the best measured average is 50 FPS on Low settings. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. No preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The difference between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS. The min/max data for Medium at 1080p shows a 12 FPS spread, which is the widest recorded range in the entire dataset.

The absence of min/max values for most presets means the database only records averages for Low, High, and Ultra across all resolutions. The Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data at every resolution. At 4K Medium, the 7 FPS range between minimum and maximum is the tightest recorded. At 1440p Medium, the range expands to 9 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range reaches 12 FPS. This pattern suggests that frame pacing becomes more variable as resolution decreases, likely because the CPU has more headroom to generate frames while the GPU still struggles to keep pace.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict data marks all resolutions as having no playable settings, meaning no preset at any resolution achieves an average of 60 FPS or higher. The playableSettings array is empty for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The bestSettings field is null for every resolution, and the avgFpsAtBest field is also null.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that comes closest to 60 FPS is Low at 30 FPS, but it still falls 30 FPS short. Medium at 23 FPS is the only 4K preset with recorded min/max data, showing a range of 20 to 27 FPS. High at 18 FPS and Ultra at 17 FPS are effectively indistinguishable in practical terms, differing by only 1 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low at 41 FPS is the highest average recorded. Medium at 32 FPS is the only preset with min/max data, ranging from 27 to 36 FPS. High at 24 FPS and Ultra at 23 FPS show the same 1 FPS separation seen at 4K. None of these presets approach the 60 FPS playability threshold.

At 1920x1080, Low at 50 FPS is the closest any preset comes to the 60 FPS threshold across all resolutions. Medium at 39 FPS has the full min/max range of 33 to 45 FPS. High at 30 FPS and Ultra at 28 FPS complete the lineup. The database records no configuration that maintains 60 FPS, so the answer to which settings are best at each resolution is that none are viable for smooth play.

CPU and GPU Roles

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X is a desktop processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, based on Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process. Its benchmark results include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15476 and a single-core score of 1574.5. It ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, but its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is only 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs.

The scaling between 4K and 1080p reveals how the GPU limits performance. At Low settings, the average FPS rises from 30 at 4K to 41 at 1440p to 50 at 1080p. That is a 67% improvement from 4K to 1080p. At Medium settings, the averages rise from 23 at 4K to 32 at 1440p to 39 at 1080p, a 70% improvement. At High settings, the averages rise from 18 at 4K to 24 at 1440p to 30 at 1080p, a 67% improvement. At Ultra settings, the averages rise from 17 at 4K to 23 at 1440p to 28 at 1080p, a 65% improvement. The consistency of these scaling ratios, all within a 65% to 70% range, indicates that resolution scaling is uniform and driven by the GPU's rendering throughput.

The CPU's role becomes clearer when examining preset scaling at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low improves the average from 28 FPS to 50 FPS, a 79% gain. At 1440p, the same preset change improves from 23 FPS to 41 FPS, a 78% gain. At 4K, the improvement is from 17 FPS to 30 FPS, a 76% gain. The fact that preset reductions yield nearly identical percentage improvements across all resolutions suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck at any resolution. If the CPU were limiting performance, the lower resolutions would show larger gains from preset reductions because the GPU would have more headroom to expose CPU limitations.

The CPU's 16 threads and high multi-threaded scores, such as the PassMark multi-thread score of 27732 and Geekbench multi-core score of 11036, are more than sufficient for a flight simulator's simulation and physics workload. The bottleneck is clearly the integrated GPU, whose Steel Nomad score of 1184 sits at the 5th percentile. Even the CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H with a score of 29093 and the Intel Core i5-13500HX at 29270, would not change the outcome because the GPU cannot deliver enough frame throughput. At every resolution, the data shows the GPU is the limiting component.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this combination cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution data lists empty playableSettings arrays for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The best settings are null at every resolution, and no average FPS value reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold.

At 4K, the best possible average is 30 FPS on Low, which is half the target. At 1440p, the best is 41 FPS on Low, still 19 FPS short. At 1080p, the best is 50 FPS on Low, 10 FPS short of playable. Even the most favorable combination of resolution and settings, 1080p Low, fails to reach 60 FPS. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking among all tested GPUs explains why: it simply does not have the raw rendering power for a demanding flight simulator.

The CPU is not the issue. The Ryzen 7 5800X ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs and delivers strong multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23 and PassMark tests. But the Intel Arc B370, an integrated solution with system-shared memory and a 25 W TDP, cannot keep up. Users who want to play this game with this CPU would need a discrete graphics card. The data does not include any alternative GPU tests for this CPU, so no specific recommendation can be made, but the conclusion is clear: the current combination is not playable by the 60 FPS standard.

FAQ

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

A: No. The best average at 3840x2160 is 30 FPS on Low settings, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

Q: What is the highest FPS this combination can achieve?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings. No other preset or resolution combination exceeds this value.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck?

A: The GPU is the bottleneck. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, while the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X ranks in the 81st percentile among CPUs with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15476.

Q: Does lowering settings help enough to reach 60 FPS?

A: No. At 1080p, dropping from Ultra to Low improves the average from 28 FPS to 50 FPS, but 50 FPS is still 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p and 4K, even Low settings only reach 41 FPS and 30 FPS respectively.

Q: What is the frame range on Medium settings?

A: At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS with an average of 23 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS with an average of 32 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS with an average of 39 FPS.

Q: Is this combination better than other tested combos?

A: No. This combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom portion of the database.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower 8% of all tested configurations. The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation: the Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU sits at the 81st percentile among all CPUs. The combination's performance is therefore constrained almost entirely by the graphics solution.

The rank of 3428 means there are 286 tested combos that perform worse, but the vast majority of tested systems deliver better results in this game. The 60 FPS playability threshold is not met at any resolution, which is consistent with a combo ranking in the bottom portion of the database. For a flight simulator that heavily stresses both CPU and GPU, the CPU side is adequate but the GPU side is not. The data does not include frame rates for other combos, so direct comparisons cannot be made, but the rank itself indicates that most tested systems outperform this one.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow score band. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135H has an average score of 29093, which is 0.1% higher than the Ryzen 7 5800X's 29123. The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 scores 29245, 0.4% higher. The Intel Core i5-13500HX scores 29270, 0.5% higher. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600XT scores 28940, 0.6% lower. Any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically to the Ryzen 7 5800X in this game, since the GPU is the limiting factor and all five processors deliver similar multi-threaded performance.

The GPU's nearest rivals are much older parts with similarly low scores. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 0.2% higher than 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. All of these GPUs are within a 2% performance band of the Arc B370, meaning they would all produce similar frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. None of them would reach 60 FPS at any resolution, based on the measured performance of the Arc B370.

For users considering a change, the data suggests that swapping the CPU for any of its nearest rivals would not improve frame rates, because the GPU bottleneck would remain. Swapping the GPU for any of its nearest rivals would also not help, since they all perform within a narrow margin. The only path to playable performance would be a GPU that ranks significantly higher in the database, but no such alternative is listed in the nearest rivals data.