Microsoft Flight Simulator

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and Intel Arc B370 shows a consistent pattern: no preset at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS threshold. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and every measured average falls below that mark.

At 3840x2160, the most demanding preset that remains closest to playable is Low, which delivers an average of 30 FPS. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. Since none of these reach 60 FPS, the data indicates that 4K resolution is not viable for smooth gameplay with this combination.

At 2560x1440, Low settings produce an average of 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. Again, no preset clears the 60 FPS line. The best possible average at this resolution is 41 FPS on Low, which is still 19 FPS short of the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the situation improves relative to higher resolutions but remains below the threshold. Low settings yield an average of 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The maximum recorded average is 50 FPS on Low, which is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS requirement.

The verdict data confirms this across all resolutions: 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. This means the database records no configuration where this CPU-GPU combo sustains 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

What stands out is the steep drop from Low to Medium at every resolution. At 1080p, the gap between Low (50 FPS) and Medium (39 FPS) is 11 FPS, a 22% reduction. At 1440p, the same step costs 9 FPS (41 to 32). At 4K, the step costs 7 FPS (30 to 23). The scaling suggests that the GPU is heavily taxed by the simulation's rendering workload, and even the lowest preset only achieves half the target frame rate at 1080p.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor between the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and the Intel Arc B370. The CPU is a desktop part with 8 cores and 16 threads, based on the Zen 3 architecture, and it scores in the 81st percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its multi-threaded performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23794 and a single-core score of 3359. The GPU, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution from Intel's Arc Graphics-M series, based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, and it sits in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its only recorded benchmark is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184.

This asymmetry is the central story. The CPU is far more capable than the GPU, so the bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator is overwhelmingly the graphics processor. Evidence for this appears in the FPS scaling across resolutions. At 1080p Low, the average is 50 FPS. At 1440p Low, it drops to 41 FPS, an 18% reduction. At 4K Low, it falls to 30 FPS, a 27% reduction from 1440p. This near-linear scaling with pixel count is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, raising resolution would have a much smaller impact on frame rates.

The same pattern holds for preset scaling. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra drops the average from 50 FPS to 28 FPS, a 44% reduction. At 1440p, the same transition goes from 41 FPS to 23 FPS, a 44% reduction. At 4K, it goes from 30 FPS to 17 FPS, a 43% reduction. The consistency of these percentages across resolutions indicates that the GPU's shading, texture, and pixel throughput are the binding constraints, not the CPU's ability to feed the simulation's physics or scenery systems.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when considering its benchmark profile. The Ryzen 7 5800XT scores 7683 in 3DMark 16-thread tests and 959 in single-thread tests. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 28053. These are robust numbers for a desktop processor, and in a less GPU-limited title, they would likely allow for higher frame rates. However, Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for heavy rendering demands, and the Arc B370's integrated nature, with system-shared memory and a 25 W TDP, cannot keep pace.

At lower resolutions and settings, the CPU's contribution is partially visible. The jump from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 11 FPS, while the jump from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS. This suggests that at Low settings, the CPU is able to feed the GPU enough frames to approach 50 FPS, but the GPU quickly saturates as settings increase. At 4K, all presets are below 30 FPS, indicating that the GPU is completely overwhelmed regardless of CPU capability. The data does not include a scenario where the CPU becomes the primary bottleneck, because the GPU's ceiling is so low.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database for both components provides context for what this combination behaves like. For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT has an average benchmark score of 29879. Its closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 7 7840H with an average score of 29868, a delta of 0%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS with a score of 29955, a delta of -0.3%. The AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS also scores 29955, with the same -0.3% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X scores 29713, which is 0.6% ahead of the 5800XT in the database's comparison metric.

These rival CPUs would all behave nearly identically in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same Intel Arc B370 GPU. Since the GPU is the limiting factor, swapping the 5800XT for a Ryzen 7 7840H or Ryzen 5 9600X would likely produce FPS numbers within a rounding error of those measured. The 0.3% to 0.6% differences in CPU scores are far smaller than the 19 FPS gap between the current 1080p Low average and the 60 FPS threshold.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, a delta of -0.2%; the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a delta of -0.5%; the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, a delta of -0.7%; and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, a delta of 1.4%. None of these GPUs offer a meaningful performance improvement. In fact, the B370 is effectively tied with a decade-old discrete GPU like the HD 5770, which underscores how limited its rendering capability is.

What this means for the user is straightforward: if the system feels slow in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is the component to replace. A CPU upgrade to any of the listed rivals would not change the outcome. The recorded FPS at any resolution or preset would remain in the 17 to 50 range. The only path to 60 FPS would be a GPU with significantly higher throughput, but the database does not list any such alternative in the B370's nearest rivals.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Based on the recorded data, the answer is no, not at the playable threshold of 60 FPS. The verdictByResolution field shows empty playableSettings arrays for all three resolutions, and the best settings at each resolution are recorded as null. This means the database does not classify any configuration as playable.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 30 on Low settings. That is exactly half the threshold. Medium, High, and Ultra all sit below 25 FPS, with Ultra at 17 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low settings reach 41 FPS, but Medium drops to 32 FPS, High to 24 FPS, and Ultra to 23 FPS. At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 50 FPS, which is the best result across the entire measurement set. However, even that falls short of 60 FPS by 10 FPS. Medium at 1080p manages 39 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS.

There is no resolution or preset combination in the data that reaches or exceeds 60 FPS. The closest is 1080p Low at 50 FPS, but that is still below the threshold. For any user hoping for smooth flight simulation, this combination does not deliver. The GPU is simply too weak relative to the demands of the game, even when paired with a strong CPU like the Ryzen 7 5800XT.

The data also reveals a consistent pattern: every step down in resolution or settings improves FPS, but the improvements are not large enough to bridge the gap. The maximum recorded average is 50 FPS, and the minimum is 17 FPS. The overall range is narrow, and the ceiling is low. This system would be better suited to less demanding titles or to running Microsoft Flight Simulator at lower frame rates with reduced visual quality, but the 60 FPS target is out of reach.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database includes exact measurements for three resolutions and four settings each. At 3840x2160, the following averages were recorded: Low at 30 FPS, Medium at 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27, High at 18 FPS, and Ultra at 17 FPS. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with min and max values recorded; the others show null for those fields.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. Again, only Medium has min and max values. At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS.

The Medium preset is the only one with full min and max data across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the frame times vary from 33 to 45 FPS, a spread of 12 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS, a 9 FPS spread. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS, a 7 FPS spread. This narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU's workload becomes more uniformly heavy, reducing variance as it saturates.

For the other presets, only averages are available. The lack of min and max values for Low, High, and Ultra means the database does not capture frame time consistency for those settings. However, the averages alone tell a clear story. The best case scenario is 1080p Low at 50 FPS. The worst case is 4K Ultra at 17 FPS. The difference between the best and worst measured averages is 33 FPS, which is a large gap and highlights how sensitive this system is to both resolution and settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is 60 FPS achievable at any resolution with this combination?

A: No. The verdict data shows empty playableSettings arrays for all three resolutions, and the maximum recorded average is 50 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, a delta of -0.2%. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, a delta of -0.5%. These differences are negligible.

Q: At 4K resolution, which preset gives the highest average FPS?

A: Low settings at 3840x2160 produce the highest average FPS at that resolution, with 30 FPS. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU limit performance in this game with this GPU?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The FPS scales consistently with resolution and preset changes, which is typical of GPU-bound scenarios. The CPU's nearest rivals have score deltas of less than 1%, so swapping CPUs would not meaningfully change FPS.

Q: What are the average FPS values at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, Low averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations, which is consistent with the FPS data showing no playable settings at any resolution.

The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation. The B370 is an integrated graphics part with a 25 W TDP, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, is in the 81st percentile. This mismatch means the system's overall performance is dragged down by the GPU, and the resulting rank is far below what the CPU alone would suggest.

Compared to the 286 combos ranked below it, the 5800XT and B370 combination is still ahead, but the margin is thin. The data indicates that most other tested combinations achieve higher frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The 3428th rank out of 3714 means 92.3% of tested combos perform better. For a user considering this system, the rank is a clear warning that the gaming experience will be below average.

The rank also aligns with the verdict: no resolution or preset reaches 60 FPS. The combination is more suited to productivity tasks or older games, but for a flight simulator with heavy rendering demands, it falls short. The only positive takeaway is that the CPU has headroom, so upgrading the GPU in the future could improve the rank substantially. But as configured, this combo sits near the bottom of the database's tested performance ladder.