Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (launch MSRP $329) and Intel Arc B580 (launch MSRP 249 USD) combination delivers playable performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p and 1440p, but falls short of 60 FPS at 4K. The measured data shows that the best playable preset at 1440p is Medium, averaging 60.7 FPS, while at 1080p Medium reaches 73 FPS. The CPU ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, and the GPU in the 68th percentile, indicating a strong processor relative to the graphics card. This analysis breaks down the performance across resolutions and settings, and examines the roles of each component.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo?

A: The highest average is 98.7 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Can the system maintain 60 FPS at 2560x1440 with High settings?

A: No. High settings at 1440p yield 46.9 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the best playable setting at 3840x2160?

A: None. All settings at 4K fall below 60 FPS, with Low averaging 55 FPS and Ultra averaging 32.6 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's benchmark score compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Ryzen 7 7700 has an average benchmark score of 40081, while its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, scores 40048, a 0.1% difference.

Q: What is the GPU's average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc B580 scores 23021 on average, placing it in the 68th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which resolution offers the largest margin above the 60 FPS threshold?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the average is 73 FPS, giving a 13 FPS margin. Low settings provide a 38.7 FPS margin, but Medium is the highest playable preset.

CPU and GPU Roles

To determine which component dominates, we look at how frame rates scale with resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset reaches 98.7 FPS, indicating that the CPU can push a high number of frames. Moving to 2560x1440 drops that to 77.1 FPS, and at 3840x2160 it falls to 55 FPS. This steep decline with resolution points to the GPU becoming the primary limiter as pixel count increases. The GPU's memory bandwidth is 456.0 GB/s and it has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, which are sufficient for 1080p and 1440p but may strain at 4K.

Within each resolution, raising settings from Low to Ultra reduces FPS by roughly 40-50%. For example, at 1080p, Low yields 98.7 FPS while Ultra yields 52.2 FPS, a 47% drop. At 1440p, the drop is from 77.1 to 41.6, a 46% drop. At 4K, from 55 to 32.6, a 41% drop. This consistent reduction suggests that the GPU workload from graphical effects is significant across all resolutions. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, has a strong multi-threaded score of 18760 in Cinebench R23, which likely handles the simulation's logic without bottlenecking at lower resolutions. However, the CPU's single-thread score of 1930 is also high, which is important for flight simulators that often rely on a main thread.

The CPU's 87th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 68th percentile suggests that the processor is a more capable part relative to its peers, but the game's performance is still limited by the GPU at higher resolutions and settings. At 1080p, the CPU appears to have enough headroom to feed the GPU, as evidenced by the 98.7 FPS Low result. As resolution climbs, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the binding constraint, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate. This is typical of a system where the graphics card is the weaker link in the pair.

Measured FPS Breakdown

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | Low | 55 |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 41.7 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 35.1 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 32.6 |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 77.1 |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 60.7 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 46.9 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 41.6 |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 98.7 |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 73 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 56.5 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 52.2 |

The data shows a clear pattern. At 1080p, all settings except High and Ultra exceed 60 FPS. At 1440p, only Low and Medium are playable. At 4K, none are. The gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases: at 1080p the difference is 46.5 FPS, at 1440p it is 35.5 FPS, and at 4K it is 22.4 FPS. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is already saturated, leaving less headroom for settings increases. Conversely, at 1080p the GPU has spare capacity, allowing Low to reach nearly 100 FPS, but the jump to Ultra still drags it below the 60 FPS line.

The Verdict

According to the verdict data, this system can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS or above at 1920x1080 with Low and Medium settings, and at 2560x1440 with Low and Medium settings. The best playable preset at 1440p is Medium, averaging 60.7 FPS, which is just above the threshold. At 1080p, Medium averages 73 FPS, offering a comfortable margin. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS; the closest is Low at 55 FPS. Therefore, the system is not suitable for 4K gaming in this title, but it is capable at 1080p and 1440p with moderate settings. The playable settings are limited to Low and Medium at both resolutions, meaning users must compromise on visual fidelity to maintain smooth frame rates.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the highest preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 73 FPS. At 2560x1440, the highest playable preset is Medium, with 60.7 FPS. At 3840x2160, there is no playable preset; the best average is 55 FPS at Low, which is below the threshold. These results indicate that for a consistent 60 FPS experience, Medium is the ceiling at both 1080p and 1440p. Users seeking higher visual quality would need to accept frame rates below 60, as High settings produce 56.5 FPS at 1080p and 46.9 FPS at 1440p, both insufficient.

How This Combo Ranks

This combo ranks 2835th out of 3714 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower 24% of systems. This indicates that while the system can handle the game at moderate settings, it is far from top-tier performance. The CPU's high percentile (87th) and GPU's moderate percentile (68th) suggest that the graphics card is the more limiting factor in this pairing. The rank is consistent with the measured FPS data: the system cannot push high settings at any resolution, and even at 1080p Medium it only achieves 73 FPS, which is decent but not exceptional. The low rank relative to other combos underscores that this is a mid-range configuration in the context of this demanding simulation.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU's nearest rivals, based on average benchmark score, include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (0.1% higher), Intel Core 5 221E (0.2% lower), AMD Ryzen 9 270 (0.4% lower), and Intel Core i9-13905H (0.6% lower). The GPU's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP (0.2% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (0.6% higher), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (0.7% lower), and NVIDIA P106-100 (1% lower). Swapping the CPU or GPU for any of these parts would yield similar overall benchmark performance, and by extension, likely similar frame rates in this game, though direct in-game measurements are not available for those alternatives. The small deltas (all under 1%) mean that any of these components could substitute for the original without a noticeable change in gameplay experience, assuming the rest of the system remains identical.