Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the recorded data for this specific configuration, pairing an AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D with an Intel Arc B370, paints a very clear picture. The benchmark results are consistent across all tested resolutions: this system does not reach the 60 FPS playable threshold at any setting combination. The data shows a hardware combination where the CPU is massively overqualified, while the GPU becomes the definitive limiting factor, resulting in frame rates that are strictly below the target for smooth, playable performance. This analysis will break down the measured performance by resolution, examine the role of each component, and provide a clear verdict based solely on the recorded figures.

Best Settings per Resolution

The database records show that no settings preset at any resolution achieves an average frame rate at or above the 60 FPS playable threshold. Therefore, there is no "best settings" recommendation that meets the performance target. The highest recorded average frame rate in the entire dataset is 50 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is still 10 FPS short of the playable threshold, confirming that even the most performance-oriented preset fails to provide a playable experience.

At 3840x2160, the results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 30 FPS, Medium settings yield 23 FPS, High settings drop to 18 FPS, and Ultra settings bottom out at 17 FPS. None of these averages approach the 60 FPS target. The variance between presets is substantial, with Low being nearly twice as fast as Ultra, but even the best-case scenario is far below acceptable playability.

For 2560x1440, the situation improves marginally but remains critically low. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium settings average 32 FPS, High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The gap between Low and the next preset is significant, yet the top average of 41 FPS is still 19 FPS below the playable threshold.

At 1920x1080, the best results are recorded. Low settings achieve an average of 50 FPS, Medium settings reach 39 FPS, High settings hit 30 FPS, and Ultra settings manage 28 FPS. Even at the lowest resolution and the least demanding preset, the system falls short of the 60 FPS target. In summary, the data provides no configuration that qualifies as playable by the database's standard.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions and presets clearly indicates that the Intel Arc B370 is the dominant bottleneck. The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, is a high-end desktop processor with an average benchmark score of 39,768 and a percentile ranking of 87 among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, with delta percentages of -0.8% and -0.7% respectively, indicating the 9800X3D is essentially on par with these processors in overall synthetic benchmarks. This CPU is clearly capable of handling heavy simulation workloads.

However, the GPU tells a different story. The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of only 1,184 and sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770 and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, have delta percentages of -0.5% and -0.2%, respectively. This places the Arc B370 in the company of very old, low-end graphics solutions. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 is a clear indicator of its limited graphical processing power.

The impact of this imbalance is visible in the frame rate data. Moving from 1920x1080 Low (50 FPS) to 2560x1440 Low (41 FPS) represents a reduction of 9 FPS, or 18%. Further scaling to 3840x2160 Low (30 FPS) results in another 11 FPS drop. This steep decline with increasing resolution is a classic sign of a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU cannot render frames fast enough at higher pixel counts.

Similarly, within a single resolution, the performance drop from Low to Ultra presets is dramatic. At 1920x1080, the difference between Low (50 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) is 22 FPS. This scaling is almost entirely attributable to the GPU being overwhelmed by increased graphical effects and detail levels. The CPU's role in this game, which involves complex flight models and world physics, is likely substantial, but its performance is masked by the GPU's inability to keep up. The data suggests that for this specific game and configuration, the GPU is the sole reason for the sub-60 FPS results at every tested setting.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following breakdown details the exact recorded average frame rates, with minimum and maximum values where available, for each resolution and settings preset.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: Average 30 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.
• Medium: Average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. The frame time variance is relatively tight.
• High: Average 18 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.
• Ultra: Average 17 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: Average 41 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.
• Medium: Average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS.
• High: Average 24 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.
• Ultra: Average 23 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: Average 50 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.
• Medium: Average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS.
• High: Average 30 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.
• Ultra: Average 28 FPS. No minimum or maximum values were recorded.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each step down in resolution or settings yields a measurable, but ultimately insufficient, increase in frame rate. The minimum FPS values recorded for Medium settings at all resolutions are close to the averages, suggesting that there are no severe single-frame stutters, but the overall performance level is simply too low. The overall combo rank for this game is 3,428 out of 3,714 tested combinations, placing this system in the bottom 8% of all tested configurations for this specific title.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The database's playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the recorded data shows that this threshold is never met. According to the verdictByResolution data, there are no playable settings at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best average frame rate achieved across all tests is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is still 10 FPS below the target.

For 4K (3840x2160), the best possible average is 30 FPS on Low, which is a slideshow by any standard. At 1440p (2560x1440), the situation is only slightly better, with a maximum average of 41 FPS on Low. Even at 1080p (1920x1080), the most common gaming resolution, the system fails to hit 60 FPS, maxing out at 50 FPS on the lowest settings. The higher presets are even worse, with 1080p Ultra averaging only 28 FPS.

This combination represents a severe mismatch. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a top-tier processor, but the Intel Arc B370 is a low-end integrated-level GPU that is not designed for demanding 3D applications. The recorded benchmark results confirm that the GPU is the bottleneck, and no amount of CPU performance can compensate for the lack of graphical horsepower. Users with this configuration should not expect to play Microsoft Flight Simulator at any acceptable frame rate, regardless of resolution or visual settings.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For those seeking to understand the performance level of this configuration, the nearest rivals from the database provide context. For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D's average benchmark score of 39,768 is nearly identical to that of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS (39,603, 0.4% slower), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40,048, 0.7% faster), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 (39,485, 0.7% slower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (40,081, 0.8% faster). In terms of raw compute, any of these CPUs would deliver essentially the same performance in this game, meaning the bottleneck would remain the GPU.

On the GPU side, the Intel Arc B370's average score of 1,184 is comparable to the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186, 0.2% faster), the ATI Radeon 5770 (1,190, 0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1,192, 0.7% faster), and the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168, 1.4% slower). These GPUs are all from a much older generation and represent a similar, very low level of 3D performance. In practical terms, swapping the Arc B370 for any of these alternatives would result in nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, all of which would be far below the 60 FPS target. The data makes it clear that the GPU is the primary performance limiter, and any of these alternative GPUs would produce the same unsatisfactory results.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS?

A: No. The recorded data shows that no resolution or settings preset achieves an average frame rate of 60 FPS. The highest average recorded is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: What is the best performance I can get with this system?

A: The best measured performance is an average of 50 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset. This is still below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear limiting factor. The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1,184 and sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The CPU, with an average score of 39,768, is far more powerful, but the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize that power.

Q: Will lowering the resolution to 1080p make the game playable?

A: No. At 1920x1080, the lowest settings still only produce an average of 50 FPS. This is 10 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Lowering the resolution does not solve the GPU bottleneck.

Q: How does this system compare to other tested configurations?

A: This system ranks 3,428 out of 3,714 tested combinations for this game, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested hardware pairings for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What would happen if I used a different CPU with this GPU?

A: The frame rate would remain essentially unchanged. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the ATI Radeon HD 5770, have nearly identical benchmark scores, and the CPU has more than enough headroom. The GPU would still be the bottleneck, and the results would be similarly poor.