Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Arc B370 shows a consistent pattern: this combination struggles to maintain smooth frame rates across all tested resolutions and settings. The measurements span three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) and four quality presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). None of the twelve recorded configurations reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the highest average at this resolution. Medium drops to 23 FPS, with minimum and maximum readings of 20 and 27 FPS respectively. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, indicating that the GPU is the primary constraint at 4K, as each step up in quality costs roughly 4 to 5 FPS.

At 2560x1440, performance improves but remains far from playable. Low averages 41 FPS, the best result at this resolution. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High drops to 24 FPS, and Ultra sits at 23 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS, showing that the gap widens as resolution decreases, which suggests the CPU begins to matter more relative to the GPU. Still, even the lowest preset misses the 60 FPS target by 19 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the combination achieves its best numbers. Low averages 50 FPS, the highest recorded frame rate for this combo. Medium averages 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 22 FPS, the largest of any resolution. Notably, there is no configuration where the average FPS reaches or exceeds 60, meaning the entire system is below the playable threshold even at 1080p with the least demanding settings.

The minimum and maximum FPS data are only available for Medium settings at each resolution. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, it is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, it is 33 to 45 FPS. These ranges show that frame pacing is relatively consistent, but the absolute values are too low for a flight simulator, where smoothness matters greatly for visual immersion.

FAQ

Q: Can the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Arc B370 run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS on any preset?

A: No. The measured data shows that no resolution or settings combination reaches 60 FPS. The highest average FPS recorded is 50 at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 10 FPS below the playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at 3840x2160?

A: The best average at 4K is 30 FPS, achieved with the Low preset. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS.

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

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184, which places it at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with a score of 1186, a delta of -0.2%. Other close rivals include the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7%), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4%). This indicates the Arc B370 performs at a level similar to those older, low-end graphics solutions.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 8% of all systems tested, reflecting its limited ability to handle this simulation title.

Q: Is there any resolution where the combo comes close to 60 FPS?

A: The closest is 1920x1080 with Low settings, averaging 50 FPS. That is still 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440 Low, the average is 41 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it is 30 FPS.

Q: Does the CPU's performance help in any way?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X scores in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37943. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, 0.1% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, 0.1%), Intel Core 5 211E (37829, 0.3%), and AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (37804, 0.4%). The CPU is clearly capable, but the GPU's very low percentile (5th) bottlenecks the system, as evidenced by the FPS data.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records no playable settings at any resolution. However, for each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above the highest average FPS is listed below, along with the exact measured average.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers the best average at 30 FPS. This is the only preset at this resolution that breaks the 30 FPS mark. Medium averages 23 FPS, High 18 FPS, and Ultra 17 FPS. Since none reach 60 FPS, Low is the only viable choice if a user insists on 4K, but the experience will be far from smooth.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset again provides the highest average at 41 FPS. Medium averages 32 FPS, High 24 FPS, and Ultra 23 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 9 FPS, a significant drop. For users who want the best visual quality at this resolution, they would have to accept a sub-30 FPS experience on High or Ultra.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset reaches an average of 50 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS, High 30 FPS, and Ultra 28 FPS. Even at 1080p, the gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, meaning that choosing Medium over Low reduces the frame rate by more than 20%. The data shows that no preset at any resolution provides a playable experience, so the "best" settings are simply those that yield the highest FPS, which are always Low.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for both the CPU and GPU provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly in this game.

On the CPU side, the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X has an average benchmark score of 37943. The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 37911, a delta of 0.1%, meaning it would perform nearly identically in CPU-bound scenarios. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 scores 37904 (0.1% delta), the Intel Core 5 211E scores 37829 (0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37804 (0.4% delta). All four rivals are within 0.4% of the 9700X, so any of them paired with the same GPU would yield essentially the same FPS results in this game. The CPU is not the limiting factor here.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals are all older, low-end cards: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, -0.2% delta), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, -0.5% delta), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, -0.7% delta), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1168, 1.4% delta). These deltas are all within 1.4%, so swapping the Arc B370 for any of these GPUs would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The performance class is clear: this GPU is at the 5th percentile, meaning it is among the weakest in the database.

If a user were to keep the Ryzen 7 9700X and replace the GPU with a stronger model, the FPS would improve, but the database does not include such pairings. Conversely, pairing the Arc B370 with a much weaker CPU would not change the outcome, as the GPU is already the bottleneck. The data suggests that any combination featuring a GPU in this performance tier will fail to reach 60 FPS in this game.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.7% of all systems in the database. The rank reflects the GPU's severe limitation: while the CPU sits at the 86th percentile, the GPU sits at the 5th percentile. The overall combo rank is dragged down by the GPU, which cannot keep up with the demands of a flight simulator that heavily relies on draw calls, terrain rendering, and complex shaders.

The data shows that this rank is consistent with the measured FPS. A combo ranking below 3400 typically indicates that the system cannot handle modern AAA titles at playable frame rates. Here, the highest average FPS across all tests is 50, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. The rank also aligns with the fact that no playable settings exist at any resolution. For context, a combo ranked near the top of the database would likely have average FPS well above 60 at 1080p Ultra, but this system is nowhere near that level.

It is importantly the combo rank is specific to this game. The same CPU and GPU might rank differently in lighter titles, but for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the ranking is firmly in the bottom decile. The 86th percentile CPU score does not rescue the overall ranking, as the GPU is the dominant factor for this workload.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Arc B370 cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The verdict by resolution confirms this. At 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, and the best average FPS is 30 (Low). At 2560x1440, there are also no playable settings, with the best average at 41 FPS (Low). At 1920x1080, the same conclusion applies: no playable settings, with the best average at 50 FPS (Low).

The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the measured data shows that this combo falls short at every resolution and preset. Even at the lowest resolution and quality setting, the average FPS is 50, which is 10 FPS below the threshold. Users who attempt to run this game on this hardware will experience noticeable stutter and low frame rates, especially in dense urban areas or during complex weather effects, which are common in flight simulation.

The CPU is not the issue. The Ryzen 7 9700X is a high-end desktop processor with an 86th percentile ranking, and its benchmark scores are comparable to other strong CPUs. The bottleneck is entirely the Intel Arc B370, which ranks at the 5th percentile of all GPUs and has performance similar to decade-old integrated graphics solutions. The GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 20 ROPs are simply insufficient for a game that demands high fill rates and geometry throughput.

For users considering this combination, the data suggests that a different GPU is required. The database does not provide FPS measurements for other GPUs paired with this CPU, but the GPU's percentile and rival comparisons make it clear that any modern mid-range or high-end GPU would be a significant upgrade. As it stands, this combo is not recommended for Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the recorded data supports that conclusion without exception.