Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Intel Arc B390 shows a consistent pattern of sub-60 FPS results across all tested resolutions and settings. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and no configuration in the database reaches that mark. At 3840x2160, the High preset delivers an average of 19 FPS, while Low improves to 33 FPS. Medium sits between them at 26 FPS average, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. Ultra matches High at 19 FPS average. The gap between Low and Medium at 4K is 7 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 7 FPS as well, indicating that the GPU is heavily constrained at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the numbers climb but remain far from playable. Low averages 45 FPS, Medium drops to 35 FPS with a 30 to 40 FPS range, High falls to 26 FPS, and Ultra lands at 25 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, while High and Ultra are nearly identical, differing by only 1 FPS. This suggests that beyond Medium, the additional rendering workload yields diminishing returns, likely due to the Arc B390's limited compute resources. The 1440p results are approximately 20 to 36 percent higher than the corresponding 4K figures, depending on the preset.

At 1920x1080, the best average appears under Low at 56 FPS, just 4 FPS shy of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 43 FPS with a 37 to 50 FPS range, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is 13 FPS, while High and Ultra remain close, separated by only 2 FPS. Notably, the 1080p Low result is the only configuration within striking distance of playability, but it still fails to reach the target. The data shows no min or max values for Low, High, or Ultra at any resolution, which limits the analysis of frame time consistency for those presets; only Medium includes full min/max data across all three resolutions.

Across the board, the pattern is clear: every preset at every resolution delivers an average FPS below 60. The highest recorded average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 19 FPS at 4K High and Ultra. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p to 4K follows an expected downward trend, but the magnitude of the drop is steep, particularly between 1080p and 1440p where Low loses 11 FPS, Medium loses 8 FPS, High loses 7 FPS, and Ultra loses 6 FPS.

CPU and GPU Roles

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X is a high-end desktop processor with 8 cores, 16 threads, and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its benchmark results place it in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35,909. The nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 at 0.3 percent higher, the Intel Core 7 250H at 0.5 percent higher, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 at 0.5 percent higher, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H at 0.7 percent higher. This CPU is clearly not the bottleneck in this pairing; its multi-threaded and single-threaded scores are strong, with Cinebench R23 multi-core at 19,088 and single-core at 1,987.

The Intel Arc B390, on the other hand, is an integrated graphics solution with a 3 nm process, 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It has 12 ray tracing cores and a boost clock of 2,500 MHz. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,482, placing it in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1.3 percent higher, the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1.5 percent higher, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 2.5 percent higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 2.7 percent higher. This GPU is fundamentally a low-power integrated part, and the data reflects that in the FPS results.

The resolution scaling tells the story of GPU dominance. From 1080p to 1440p, the average FPS drops by roughly 20 to 30 percent across presets, and from 1440p to 4K, the drop is another 25 to 35 percent. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU workload per frame is largely independent of resolution. Instead, the steep decline with resolution confirms that the Arc B390 is the primary constraint. The CPU's high single-thread performance, evidenced by a 3DMark single-thread score of 1,090 and Geekbench single-core score of 2,289, means it can feed frames faster than the GPU can render them.

The preset scaling further reinforces this. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS, but from Medium to High costs only 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs just 2 FPS. This non-linear scaling suggests that the GPU's shading units and memory bandwidth are saturated at Medium, so further increases in visual quality have a smaller incremental impact. The same pattern appears at 1440p and 4K, where High and Ultra results are nearly identical. This is characteristic of a GPU that runs out of compute headroom early, leaving CPU performance unused. The Ryzen 7 7700X has a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19,088 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 35,686, so it is not starved for processing power; the bottleneck is purely on the graphics side.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded for this combination?

A: The highest average FPS is 56, recorded at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This falls 4 FPS short of the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B390 support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, the Arc B390 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) as its DirectX API support, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Microsoft Flight Simulator can run under these APIs, but the GPU's low compute throughput limits performance.

Q: How does the Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The Arc B390's average benchmark score is 1,482. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1,463, which is 1.3 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M is 1.5 percent higher at 1,460, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM is 2.5 percent higher at 1,446, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 is 2.7 percent higher at 1,443. These are all extremely low-end GPUs, and the Arc B390 sits among them.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 7700X a strong CPU for gaming?

A: The CPU's benchmark data indicates strong performance, with an average benchmark score of 35,909 and the 85th percentile ranking among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845, scores 35,802, which is only 0.3 percent higher. However, in this specific game and GPU pairing, the CPU's capabilities are not fully utilized due to the GPU bottleneck.

Q: What are the full min/max FPS data available for this game?

A: The database includes min and max FPS only for the Medium preset at each resolution. At 3840x2160, the range is 22 to 30 FPS with an average of 26. At 2560x1440, the range is 30 to 40 FPS with an average of 35. At 1920x1080, the range is 37 to 50 FPS with an average of 43. No min or max values are recorded for Low, High, or Ultra presets.

Q: What is the combo rank of this PC for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 3,302 out of 3,714 tested combos for this game. That places it in the bottom 11 percent of all tested systems, which aligns with the sub-60 FPS results across all settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X plus Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 3,302 out of 3,714 tested combos in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This puts the system in the 11th percentile, meaning roughly 89 percent of tested configurations deliver better performance. The ranking is consistent with the measured FPS data: no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS, and the highest average is 56 FPS at 1080p Low. Given that the GPU is an integrated part with a 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs, the low combo rank is expected. The CPU, by contrast, ranks in the 85th percentile, so the pairing is heavily mismatched. The GPU holds the system back to a degree that the CPU cannot compensate for.

The nearest GPU rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GT 710, are legacy or ultra-low-end parts from over a decade ago. The Arc B390 scores within 2.7 percent of these parts, which contextualizes its performance tier. At 4K Ultra, the game runs at 19 FPS average, which is not a playable experience. At 1440p Low, the average is 45 FPS, which is smoother but still below the 60 FPS threshold. Even at 1080p Low, the 56 FPS average is only marginally better and fails to clear the bar. The combo rank reflects this reality: it is a low-performing configuration for this particular title.

The database does not list any playable settings for any resolution. The verdictByResolution field is empty for all three resolutions, indicating that no configuration in the measured data achieves 60 FPS or higher. This is a definitive outcome. The system cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level under the tested presets, regardless of resolution.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Based on the recorded data, the answer is no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 33 under Low, which is far below the target. At 2560x1440, the best average is 45 under Low, still 15 FPS short. At 1920x1080, the best average is 56 under Low, just 4 FPS shy of the threshold. The verdictByResolution field in the database confirms that there are no playable settings at any resolution. Every preset, from Low to Ultra, at every resolution, falls below 60 FPS.

The data is unambiguous. The Arc B390 is an integrated GPU with only 1,536 shading units and a 9th percentile benchmark ranking. It is not designed for demanding flight simulation at high frame rates. The Ryzen 7 7700X provides ample CPU headroom, but the GPU cannot translate that into FPS. Even at the lowest settings and resolution, the system misses the playable mark. For users who can tolerate frame rates below 60, the game is technically runnable, but the experience would be compromised. The database's playable threshold is fixed at 60 FPS, and this combination does not meet it.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the constraint that no preset reaches 60 FPS, the database does not list a "best settings" option for any resolution. The verdictByResolution field is null for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, meaning there is no configuration that satisfies the playable threshold. For the sake of clarity, the highest average FPS at each resolution is achieved with the Low preset: 33 FPS at 4K, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 56 FPS at 1080p. These are the least demanding settings and yield the best performance, but none of them clear 60 FPS. If a user were to prioritize frame rate over visual quality, Low would be the recommended preset, but the data does not support a "playable" designation. Medium presets offer slightly better visuals but cost 7 FPS at 4K, 10 FPS at 1440p, and 13 FPS at 1080p compared to Low. High and Ultra presets drop performance further and are not advisable given the already sub-60 FPS results.