Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a system that struggles to maintain playable frame rates at any tested resolution. Across all twelve measurement points, every average FPS figure falls below the 60 FPS playability threshold defined in the database, and in most cases the averages sit far below that mark.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest of the three resolutions. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the best outcome at this resolution. Medium settings produce an average of 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS, the only setting tier at 4K that recorded min and max values. High settings drop to 18 FPS on average, while Ultra falls further to 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, indicating that even the most demanding preset only costs about 43% of the Low preset's performance, a relatively modest penalty for such a large visual quality jump.

Moving to 2560x1440, the Low preset reaches 41 FPS on average, which is 11 FPS higher than the same preset at 4K. Medium settings average 32 FPS with a recorded range of 27 to 36 FPS. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset adds visual fidelity without a meaningful frame rate cost relative to High. The spread from Low to Ultra at this resolution is 18 FPS, a wider gap than at 4K, which implies the GPU has more headroom to differentiate presets when pixel count is lower.

At 1920x1080, the best average appears on the Low preset at 50 FPS, still 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings average 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The Low to Ultra spread at 1080p is 22 FPS, the largest of any resolution, meaning preset selection has the greatest impact at the lowest pixel count. Notably, the step from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, while the step from Medium to High costs 9 FPS, but High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS. The diminishing returns become clear: the Ultra preset delivers only 2 FPS less than High on average, making High the more sensible target if any preset must be chosen.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The highest recorded average in the entire dataset is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 17 FPS at 4K Ultra. Min and max values are only available for the Medium preset at each resolution, giving a partial view of frame pacing. At 4K Medium, the 20 to 27 FPS range shows tight but low performance. At 1440p Medium, the 27 to 36 FPS range is broader. At 1080p Medium, the 33 to 45 FPS range represents the most stable window in the dataset, though still far below playable.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That puts it in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations, a position that reflects the severe GPU bottleneck evident in the measured FPS data. Only 286 combos perform worse, meaning the vast majority of tested systems deliver higher frame rates in this flight simulator.

The percentile ranking for the CPU alone tells a different story. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D sits at the 80th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating strong processing capability. Its average benchmark score of 27896 places it well above the median processor. The GPU, however, sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. That extreme imbalance between a top-quintile CPU and a bottom-quintile GPU explains why the combo rank is so poor: the processor has ample headroom, but the graphics solution cannot translate that into frame rate.

The measured FPS data confirms this interpretation. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 50 FPS, a result that is clearly limited by the GPU rather than the CPU. If the processor were the constraint, reducing resolution from 1440p to 1080p would not produce a 9 FPS gain on Low settings (from 41 to 50 FPS). Similarly, dropping from 4K to 1080p on Low settings yields a 20 FPS improvement (from 30 to 50 FPS), a scaling pattern that points squarely at the graphics subsystem.

In the context of the full combo ranking, this system is not viable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any of the tested settings. The rank of 3428 out of 3714 means that users seeking playable performance would need to look at combinations that sit much higher in the database, likely those pairing similarly strong CPUs with substantially more capable GPUs.

CPU and GPU Roles

The division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D and the Intel Arc B370 is lopsided in this game. The CPU is a high-end desktop part with 8 cores and 16 threads, based on Zen 3 architecture, and its benchmark scores reflect that pedigree. The GPU, by contrast, is an integrated-class solution with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 render output units, drawing only 25 watts. The disparity in raw capability between these two components is the defining feature of this combination.

At 4K resolution, the GPU is almost certainly the limiting factor. The average FPS across presets ranges from 17 to 30, and the difference between Low and Ultra is only 13 FPS. A stronger GPU would show a wider spread between presets at 4K, because the pixel count would stress the graphics hardware enough to make preset changes meaningful. The narrow spread here suggests the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, leaving little room for additional visual work.

At 1440p, the preset spread widens to 18 FPS (23 to 41), and at 1080p it widens further to 22 FPS (28 to 50). This scaling behavior indicates that as resolution drops, the GPU becomes less saturated and preset selection has more impact. The CPU, meanwhile, has more than enough headroom at all resolutions. The 5800X3D's 96 MB of shared L3 cache and 16 threads are far more than this flight simulator appears to require at the tested settings, given that frame rates scale so strongly with resolution.

The scaling between resolutions on the same preset reinforces this conclusion. On Low settings, the average FPS goes from 30 at 4K to 41 at 1440p to 50 at 1080p, a 67% improvement from 4K to 1080p. On Medium settings, the progression is 23 to 32 to 39, a 70% improvement. On High settings, it is 18 to 24 to 30, a 67% improvement. On Ultra, it is 17 to 23 to 28, a 65% improvement. These nearly uniform scaling ratios are characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where halving the pixel count yields a predictable frame rate increase.

The CPU's role in this combination is to avoid becoming a bottleneck, and the data shows it succeeds. If the CPU were limiting performance, the frame rate gains from lowering resolution would shrink or disappear at lower settings where the CPU has more work relative to the GPU. Instead, the gains remain consistent across all presets, confirming that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is not the constraint. The Intel Arc B370, with its low pixel rate and texture rate, is the component that determines the outcome.

FAQ

Q: Can this combination reach 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator at any tested setting?

A: No. The highest average FPS recorded in the database is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. Every other preset and resolution combination falls below that, and none reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average FPS this system can produce at 1080p?

A: The Low preset delivers 50 FPS on average at 1920x1080. Medium settings produce 39 FPS, High produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to the GPU in terms of benchmark standing?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D sits at the 80th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 27896, while the Intel Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among GPUs with an average score of 1184. The CPU is far stronger relative to its peers.

Q: What are the closest performing alternatives to this CPU in the database?

A: The nearest rivals to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D are the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U with an average score of 27887, the Intel Core i9-10900K at 27872, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 at 27932, and the Intel Core i5-12600KF at 27799. All are within 0.3% of the 5800X3D's average score.

Q: What are the closest performing alternatives to this GPU in the database?

A: The nearest rivals to the Intel Arc B370 are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with an average score of 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168. These scores are all within 1.4% of the Arc B370's 1184 average.

Q: Is this system more limited by the CPU or the GPU in this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. Frame rates scale consistently with resolution, improving by roughly 65% to 70% when moving from 4K to 1080p across all presets, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance. The CPU's high percentile ranking and strong benchmark scores support this conclusion.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU side, the database shows that the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D has several near-neighbors in average benchmark score. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800U scores 27887, a delta of 0% from the 5800X3D's 27896, meaning these two processors are effectively indistinguishable in aggregate performance. The Intel Core i9-10900K scores 27872, just 0.1% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 scores 27932, 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i5-12600KF scores 27799, 0.3% lower. Any of these CPUs would behave nearly identically to the 5800X3D in Microsoft Flight Simulator, assuming the same GPU is used. The choice among them would come down to platform considerations rather than game performance, since the FPS deltas are negligible.

For the GPU side, the alternatives are much closer in absolute terms but represent a very different performance class. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, 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 four GPUs bracket the Arc B370 so tightly that swapping between them would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game. The measured FPS data for the Arc B370, such as 50 FPS at 1080p Low and 30 FPS at 1080p High, would be a reliable expectation for any of these alternatives.

The practical implication is that a system built around any of these CPUs paired with any of these GPUs would land in the same performance tier as the tested combination. The combo rank of 3428 out of 3714 would not change meaningfully, because the CPU swaps are within 0.3% and the GPU swaps are within 1.4% of the respective averages. Users with these components should expect the same outcome: sub-60 FPS at all tested settings and resolutions in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings for this combination at any resolution, as defined by the 60 FPS threshold. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 30 on the Low preset, which is 30 FPS below the threshold. The verdict field confirms this: no playable settings exist at 4K, and the best settings field is null because no preset reaches 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the same conclusion applies. The Low preset averages 41 FPS, still 19 FPS short of playable. No other preset comes closer: Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The verdict records no playable settings at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset produces the highest average in the entire dataset at 50 FPS, but that remains 10 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The verdict again lists no playable settings.

Since no resolution reaches the playable threshold at any preset, there is no "most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS" to recommend. The database marks the best settings as null for all three resolutions, and the average FPS at best settings is likewise null. In practical terms, this combination requires either a reduction in resolution below 1080p, which was not tested, or a change in hardware to approach playable frame rates. The recorded data offers no preset recommendation because none satisfies the 60 FPS requirement.