Microsoft Flight Simulator

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this configuration in the bottom 8% of the database, a result driven almost entirely by the GPU side of the pairing. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a strong desktop processor, sitting at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, but the Arc B370 is an integrated-class part that lands at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. When the two are combined, the CPU's headroom is largely unused because the graphics workload becomes the limiting factor at every resolution tested.

The recorded data shows no playable settings at any resolution when using the 60 FPS threshold. The best average FPS recorded anywhere is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which still falls short of the 60 FPS playability bar. This is a combination that cannot deliver a smooth flight simulator experience even at the lowest tested settings, and the ranking reflects that reality: 3428th place out of 3714 combos is a clear signal that this pairing is mismatched for this specific game.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D provides 8 cores, 16 threads, and 96 MB of shared L3 cache, with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. These specifications are more than adequate for Microsoft Flight Simulator's CPU demands, particularly in scenarios with heavy scenery loading and complex flight models. The CPU's benchmark results reinforce this: it scores 16817 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1713 in single-core, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 34293. None of these figures are the bottleneck in this pairing.

The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated GPU with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. The FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, and the GPU shares system memory with no dedicated VRAM. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is heavily graphics-bound at higher resolutions and presets, this GPU becomes the dominant constraint.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 50 FPS. Dropping to 1440p Low reduces that to 41 FPS, and 4K Low further reduces it to 30 FPS. The FPS drops are proportional to the pixel count increase, which is classic GPU-bound behavior. The same pattern holds across all presets: at High settings, the average goes from 30 FPS at 1080p to 24 FPS at 1440p to 18 FPS at 4K. The CPU is not changing between these runs, so the consistent percentage drops across resolutions point squarely at the GPU as the limiting factor.

Preset scaling tells the same story. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium drops the average from 50 to 39 FPS, a 22% reduction. Low to High drops from 50 to 30 FPS, a 40% reduction. Low to Ultra drops from 50 to 28 FPS, a 44% reduction. These are large swings for preset changes, which again indicates that the GPU is saturated. A CPU-bound scenario would show much smaller FPS differences between presets, since the CPU workload would remain similar while only the GPU load changes.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the best result comes from Low settings with an average of 50 FPS. Medium settings produce 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS playability threshold, but the progression from Low to Ultra shows a clear and steady decline as the graphics load increases.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 41 FPS. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is already so constrained at 1440p that further preset increases yield diminishing returns.

At 3840x2160, Low settings average 30 FPS. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 1 FPS, which indicates the GPU has hit a hard ceiling. Even at Low settings, the 4K result of 30 FPS is exactly half of the 1080p Low result of 50 FPS, reinforcing the pixel-count-driven scaling.

The minimum and maximum FPS values were only recorded for Medium settings at each resolution. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS, a 12 FPS spread. 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. The narrowing range at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is consistently maxed out, leaving less variance in frame times.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any setting?

A: No. The database shows no playable settings at any resolution. The highest average FPS recorded is 50 at 1080p Low, which is below the 60 FPS playability threshold.

Q: Which component is holding back performance in this game?

A: The Intel Arc B370 GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 5th percentile. FPS scales proportionally with resolution and preset changes, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168. The performance differences are within 1.4% across all four rivals.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at 1440p?

A: The best 1440p result is 41 FPS at Low settings. Medium settings average 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 7800X3D a capable processor for this game?

A: Yes, the CPU itself is strong, scoring 16817 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 34293 in PassMark multi-thread. The issue is that the GPU cannot keep up, so the CPU's performance headroom goes unused in this pairing.

Q: What happens to FPS when going from Medium to Ultra at 4K?

A: The average drops from 23 FPS at Medium to 17 FPS at Ultra, a 6 FPS reduction. Both are far below playable, and the small difference indicates the GPU is already saturated at Medium settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D in the database are the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, Intel Core i7-13650HX, AMD Ryzen 7 7745HX, and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H. All four have average benchmark scores between 33089 and 33201, with delta percentages of 0% to -0.4% relative to the 7800X3D's score of 33079. If you swapped in any of these CPUs while keeping the Arc B370, the FPS results in Microsoft Flight Simulator would be essentially identical, since the GPU remains the bottleneck.

The nearest rivals to the Intel Arc B370 are significantly older and lower-powered parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168. The Arc B370's score of 1184 sits in the middle of this group, with deltas ranging from -0.7% to +1.4%. These are all legacy parts from over a decade ago, and their performance in modern flight simulation would be similarly inadequate. The practical takeaway is that the Arc B370 is not a suitable GPU for Microsoft Flight Simulator, and any alternative in this performance class would produce comparable results.

For a builder considering this CPU, the data suggests pairing it with a far stronger GPU to take advantage of the processor's capabilities. The CPU's nearest rivals all perform within 0.4% of each other, so the choice among them will not materially change game performance when the GPU is the constraint. The GPU side is where the improvement must come from.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, there is no preset that reaches 60 FPS. The best average FPS is 30 at Low settings, followed by 23 at Medium, 18 at High, and 17 at Ultra. Since all settings fall below the playability threshold, the database records no recommended settings for 4K.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. Low settings produce 41 FPS, Medium produces 32 FPS, High produces 24 FPS, and Ultra produces 23 FPS. None reach 60 FPS, so there are no playable settings at this resolution either.

At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 50 FPS, which is the highest average FPS in the entire dataset. However, this still falls short of the 60 FPS threshold. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The database records no playable settings at 1080p either.

In practical terms, this combo cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution or preset combination. The closest approach is 1080p Low at 50 FPS, but that remains below the playability bar. For users who must use this hardware, the data suggests the best experience would be at 1080p with Low settings, accepting that frame rates will fluctuate below the ideal threshold. The alternative is to reduce the resolution below 1080p, which was not tested in this dataset, or to upgrade the GPU to a part with significantly higher 3DMark Steel Nomad scores.