Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the database, and this particular combination of an AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with the Intel Arc B370 produces a strictly limited experience. The recorded data shows that no tested resolution, from 1920x1080 up to 3840x2160, reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold at any preset. The best result is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is still 10 FPS short of the target. This is a configuration for users who prioritize CPU-heavy workloads elsewhere, not for smooth flight simulation at high frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The CPU and GPU each have close rivals in the database, which helps contextualize their individual performance. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F sits in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 69996. Its nearest rivals are extremely tight in scoring: the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX averages 69875, which is only 0.2% behind the 9700F. The Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163, a 0.2% lead over the 9700F. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Intel Core i7-14700K are also close, at 69515 (0.7% behind) and 69355 (0.9% behind) respectively. For practical purposes, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame pacing in a GPU-bound scenario like this one, since the bottleneck is overwhelmingly on the graphics side.

The Intel Arc B370, however, is in a completely different class. It sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of just 1184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are ancient or low-end parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% ahead), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% behind). This means that in terms of raw GPU throughput, the Arc B370 behaves like a graphics solution from roughly a decade ago. Users familiar with those older cards will have a very accurate expectation of what this combo delivers in a flight simulator: low settings only, and even then, frame rates that struggle to stay fluid.

CPU and GPU Roles

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the role of each component changes with resolution, but the data shows that the GPU is the limiting factor across the board. At 3840x2160, the average FPS drops from 30 at Low to 18 at High, a 40% reduction just from raising the preset. At 2560x1440, the same preset change (Low to High) sees the average fall from 41 to 24, a 41% drop. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 50 FPS, while High averages 30, a 40% decline. This consistent scaling pattern, roughly 40% penalty from Low to High regardless of resolution, points directly at the GPU's fixed capabilities. The CPU, with its high single-thread score of 4691 and multithread score of 36470, is not the constraint here; if it were, the relative drop between Low and High would shrink as resolution increases, which it does not.

The resolution scaling itself reinforces this. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at the same preset (High) drops the average from 30 to 24 FPS, a 20% loss. Going further to 3840x2160 at High drops it again to 18 FPS, another 25% loss from the 1440p figure. These are classic signs of a GPU that is saturated by pixel throughput. The CPU's performance headroom is irrelevant because the Arc B370 cannot feed frames fast enough. At Low presets, the pattern is similar: 50 FPS at 1080p, 41 at 1440p, and 30 at 2160p. The GPU's memory is system-shared and bandwidth is system-dependent, which means it relies entirely on the host memory subsystem, and that further limits its ability to handle high-resolution textures.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 7 9700F and the Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations in the database. For perspective, this means roughly 92% of tested PC builds deliver higher average frame rates in this game. The rank is dominated by the GPU's low percentile standing (5th), not the CPU's strong showing (94th). The data indicates that swapping the CPU for a much weaker one would barely change the ranking, while swapping the GPU for even a modestly better part would move the combo up significantly. The combination is heavily imbalanced: a top-tier CPU paired with a GPU that cannot keep up with any modern graphics workload.

The measured FPS values confirm this imbalance. At 1080p Ultra, the combo averages 28 FPS. At 1440p Ultra, it averages 23 FPS. At 4K Ultra, it drops to 17 FPS. These are not playable numbers for a flight simulator where smooth camera movement and quick reactions matter. The only settings that approach a usable experience are 1080p Low (50 FPS) and 1440p Low (41 FPS), but even those fall short of the 60 FPS threshold. The verdict is clear: this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution or preset tested.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? The recorded data says no, not at the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdictByResolution field shows zero playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Every resolution fails to reach 60 FPS on every preset. The best possible outcome is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS below the threshold. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 39 FPS, and at 1080p High it falls to 30 FPS. Higher resolutions are worse: 1440p Low averages 41 FPS, 1440p High averages 24 FPS, and 4K Low averages 30 FPS. The game is technically playable at reduced settings, but it will feel choppy and unresponsive compared to the smooth experience the 60 FPS target is meant to represent.

The CPU is not the problem. The Ryzen 7 9700F is a strong processor with a 94th percentile ranking, and its benchmark scores (single-thread 4691, multithread 36470) are far above what this game needs. The GPU is the sole bottleneck. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking and its nearest rivals (all over a decade old) make it clear that this is a low-end integrated-class graphics solution. In a flight simulator that pushes both geometry and textures, this GPU simply lacks the raw throughput. Users who already own this combination should expect to run the game at 1080p Low and accept frame rates in the 40-50 range, or lower the resolution further. Users planning a new build for this game should look at a different GPU entirely.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The database includes exact average, minimum, and maximum FPS values for three resolutions and four presets, though minimum and maximum are only recorded for Medium settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 50 FPS. The Medium preset averages 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. The High preset averages 30 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 28 FPS. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 41 FPS. The Medium preset averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. The High preset averages 24 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 23 FPS. At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. The High preset averages 18 FPS. The Ultra preset averages 17 FPS.

These numbers reveal a consistent pattern: each step up in resolution costs roughly 20% performance, and each step up in preset from Low to Medium costs roughly 20-25%, with High and Ultra costing even more. The minimum FPS values are particularly telling. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 33 FPS, which means the game dips below 30 FPS during complex scenes. At 1440p Medium, the minimum is 27 FPS, and at 4K Medium, it is 20 FPS. These dips make the experience feel stuttery, especially in a game where smooth panning is essential. The maximum values do not rescue the experience: even the best case at 1080p Medium (45 FPS) is below the 60 FPS target.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is none. The database shows no preset reaches 60 FPS at this resolution. The highest average is 50 FPS at Low, which is below the threshold. Since the verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for any resolution, there is no "best" setting that meets the criterion. Users are forced to choose between Low at 1080p (50 FPS), Medium at 1080p (39 FPS), or High at 1080p (30 FPS). None of these are smooth enough for a satisfying flight sim experience.

At 2560x1440, the same situation applies. No preset reaches 60 FPS. The best average is 41 FPS at Low, followed by 32 FPS at Medium, 24 at High, and 23 at Ultra. At 3840x2160, the best average is 30 FPS at Low, with Medium at 23, High at 18, and Ultra at 17. The conclusion is unambiguous: this combo cannot deliver 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution or preset. The only path to a playable frame rate would be to drastically reduce the resolution below 1080p, which is outside the measured data, or to accept a sub-60 FPS experience. For anyone building a PC specifically for this game, the Intel Arc B370 is a hard stop. The Ryzen 7 9700F is excellent, but it is wasted here. Pair it with a substantially stronger GPU to get the 60 FPS that this simulator demands.