Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator on the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 with the Intel Arc B390 shows a system that struggles to maintain playable frame rates across all tested resolutions and settings. The measurements are consistent: the highest average FPS ever recorded is 56 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which still falls short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest. With Low settings, the average FPS is 33. Medium settings produce an average of 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. High and Ultra settings both deliver an average of 19 FPS, with no separate min or max values recorded for those presets. The gap between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High/Ultra is another 7 FPS, indicating that the GPU becomes the limiting factor early in the preset ladder.

At 2560x1440, the pattern repeats but with slightly higher numbers. Low settings yield an average of 45 FPS. Medium settings average 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 20 FPS, and the Medium preset shows the only recorded min/max range in this resolution, suggesting some frame time variability under moderate load.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings reach an average of 56 FPS, just below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings average 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. High settings average 33 FPS, and Ultra settings average 31 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, while the drop from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS, indicating diminishing returns at the highest preset.

Across all resolutions, the min and max values are only recorded for Medium settings. At 3840x2160, the min is 22 and the max is 30; at 2560x1440, the min is 30 and the max is 40; at 1920x1080, the min is 37 and the max is 50. This suggests that Medium is the only preset where the system exhibits measurable frame time variance, while Low, High, and Ultra results were captured as single average values without variance data.

Best Settings per Resolution

The verdict data is unambiguous: this combination does not achieve 60 FPS at any resolution with any preset. The playable settings list is empty for all three resolutions, and the best settings field is null at each resolution.

At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 33 with Low settings. This is the best possible result, but it falls 27 FPS short of the playable threshold. The gap is substantial, and no setting adjustment can bridge it.

At 2560x1440, the highest average FPS is 45 with Low settings. This is 15 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset comes close with a 35 FPS average, but it still misses the mark by a wide margin.

At 1920x1080, the highest average FPS is 56 with Low settings. This is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS, which is 17 FPS short. Even the best case scenario, Low settings at 1080p, does not clear the playable bar.

The database shows no configuration where this hardware meets the 60 FPS requirement. The system is consistently below the threshold, with the closest result being the 56 FPS average at 1920x1080 Low. For users seeking 60 FPS, this combination fails at every resolution and preset combination tested.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals which component dominates in Microsoft Flight Simulator with this hardware. The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated GPU with 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This is a severely constrained graphics solution, and the data reflects that.

When moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at Low settings, the average FPS drops from 56 to 45, a 19.6% reduction. From 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 at Low settings, the average drops from 45 to 33, a 26.7% reduction. These are large percentage losses that scale with pixel count, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. The GPU's pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and the data shows it cannot keep up with increasing resolution demands.

The preset scaling at each resolution further confirms the GPU bottleneck. At 1920x1080, Low averages 56 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, and from Medium to High is 10 FPS, but from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS. This pattern suggests that the GPU hits a performance ceiling around the High preset, where additional graphical features have little impact because the GPU is already saturated.

The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 7 7700, is a strong 8-core, 16-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 18760, and its 3DMark 16-thread score is 8484. The CPU sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals are within 0.6% of its average benchmark score. This is not a weak processor, but the GPU is so far below the CPU's capability that the CPU never becomes the limiting factor.

The resolution scaling shows that the GPU is the dominant constraint at all three resolutions. The CPU has enough headroom to feed the GPU at 1920x1080, but the GPU cannot translate that into higher frame rates. At higher resolutions, the gap between the CPU's capability and the GPU's output widens, making the GPU even more of a bottleneck. The data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the primary factor, as the FPS drops are consistently tied to resolution and preset increases, not to CPU threading or clock limits.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 are all within a narrow performance band. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 has an average score of 40048, which is 0.1% higher than the 7700's 40081. The Intel Core 5 221E scores 40144, 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 270 scores 40246, 0.4% higher. The Intel Core i9-13905H scores 40313, 0.6% higher. These deltas are negligible, meaning any of these CPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc B390 tell a different story. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, and its rivals are all older, low-end NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower. The GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% lower. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% lower. The GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% lower. These are all within a 2.7% performance band, meaning that swapping the Arc B390 for any of these GPUs would result in nearly identical FPS in this game. The performance class is clearly defined: this GPU is at the very bottom of the current graphics hierarchy, and its rivals are all legacy parts from a different era.

The combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU creates a lopsided pairing. The CPU's rivals would not change the outcome because the CPU is not the bottleneck. The GPU's rivals would not change the outcome either, because they are all equally weak. The data shows that this system is firmly anchored to the GPU's performance level, and neither component swap within the listed rivals would move the frame rates meaningfully.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS in any configuration?

A: No. The verdict data shows empty playable settings lists for all three resolutions. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average FPS this system achieves at 1920x1080?

A: The best result is 56 FPS at Low settings. Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the system perform at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: The average FPS is 35, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. This is 25 FPS below the playable threshold, and the minimum dips to exactly 30 FPS, indicating inconsistent frame delivery.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, while the Ryzen 7 7700 is in the 87th percentile of CPUs. Resolution scaling shows large FPS drops when pixel count increases, which is a GPU-bound pattern.

Q: What GPUs would perform similarly to the Intel Arc B390 in this game?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% lower score), GeForce 800M (1.5% lower), GeForce GT 625 OEM (2.5% lower), and GeForce GT 710 (2.7% lower). All are within a 2.7% performance band, so frame rates would be nearly identical.

Q: What is the best preset for this system at 3840x2160?

A: Low settings produce the highest average FPS at 33. Medium averages 26 FPS, and High and Ultra both average 19 FPS. Even the best case at 4K is 27 FPS below the playable threshold.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 with the Intel Arc B390 cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any resolution or preset. The verdict data lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

At 3840x2160, the best possible result is 33 FPS with Low settings. This is 27 FPS below the threshold, and the system never comes close to playable performance. Medium, High, and Ultra all produce averages below 26 FPS, making 4K gaming effectively impossible.

At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS with Low settings, still 15 FPS short of the threshold. Medium averages 35 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 26 and 25 FPS respectively. The 1440p resolution does not provide a playable experience at any setting.

At 1920x1080, the best result is 56 FPS with Low settings, just 4 FPS below the threshold. This is the closest the system comes to playable performance, but it still fails the requirement. Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 13 FPS, meaning users cannot raise the preset without sacrificing significant frame rate.

The data is clear: this hardware combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS. The GPU is the primary constraint, and its 9th percentile ranking places it far below what this flight simulator demands. Even with a strong CPU and the lowest settings, the system falls short at every resolution. Users seeking 60 FPS in this game would need a different GPU, as the current configuration cannot deliver playable performance.