Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D sits in a tight cluster of processors with nearly identical average benchmark scores. The closest rival is the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M, which scores within 0.1% of the AMD chip. The Intel Xeon w5-2545 is 0.2% behind, while the Intel Core i9-14900 trails by 0.5%. On the other side, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 leads by 0.7%. These deltas are negligible in real-world terms, meaning any of these CPUs would deliver essentially the same compute performance in CPU-bound scenarios.

For the Intel Arc B370, the situation is markedly different. This GPU ranks in the 5th percentile of all tested graphics cards, and its nearest rivals are all older discrete parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 0.2% higher, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 is 0.5% ahead, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M leads by 0.7%. The AMD FirePro M2000 trails by 1.4%. These are all legacy parts with vastly different feature sets, but the recorded benchmark data places them in the same performance tier. Users should expect similar raw frame throughput from any of these GPUs, though modern API support will differ.

The CPU's position in the 92nd percentile of all processors confirms it is a high-end part, while the GPU's 5th percentile ranking indicates it is a very low-end solution. This pairing creates a severe imbalance: the processor is capable of feeding far more graphical work than the Arc B370 can render. When evaluating alternative hardware, the bottleneck will always be the graphics side, so upgrading the GPU alone would yield the largest frame rate gains.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate recorded for this combo at any resolution and settings level?

A: The best result is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No tested configuration reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested CPU-GPU pairs in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo ranks 3428th out of 3714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations.

Q: Are there any settings at 2560x1440 that produce playable frame rates?

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at this resolution. The highest average is 41 FPS at Low settings, well below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: What is the difference between Low and Ultra settings at 3840x2160?

A: At 4K, Low settings average 30 FPS, while Ultra averages 17 FPS. This is a 13 FPS drop, representing a 43% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Does the Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The GPU uses System Shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means performance can vary based on the host system's memory configuration.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance relative to its multi-thread performance?

A: In Cinebench R23, the CPU scores 2228 in single-core and 22807 in multi-core. The multi-core score is approximately 10.2 times the single-core score, indicating strong scaling across its 8 cores and 16 threads.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the recorded data shows consistently low performance. Low settings produce an average of 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 gap between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, and even the best case (Low) falls far short of the 60 FPS target.

Moving to 2560x1440, results improve but remain below playability. 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 spread between Low and Ultra is 18 FPS. Notably, the step from Medium to High costs 8 FPS, while the step from High to Ultra costs only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings average 50 FPS. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS. Even at the lowest preset, the average is 10 FPS short of the playable threshold, and the minimum frame rate at Medium (33 FPS) is well below what most users would consider smooth.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: Low settings are the only preset that approaches playability, and even then only at 1080p. The GPU's shared memory architecture and low compute throughput (6.144 TFLOPS FP32) appear to be the limiting factors, as the CPU's benchmark scores are far above what this game would typically require.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded measurements, this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any resolution or preset. The verdict data shows empty playable settings lists for all three resolutions: 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The 60 FPS threshold is never reached in any tested configuration.

The closest result is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which is 10 FPS short of the target. At 2560x1440, the best case is 41 FPS at Low settings, a 19 FPS deficit. At 3840x2160, the best case is 30 FPS at Low settings, a 30 FPS deficit. The data indicates that this combination is fundamentally mismatched for this title, with the GPU lacking the raw throughput to maintain smooth frame rates even at the lowest graphical preset.

Users considering this hardware for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect a sub-60 FPS experience across the board. The game is playable in the sense that it runs, but it will not meet the standard of 60 FPS that the database uses as its playability threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

For 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS. The best recorded average is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is the highest frame rate available at this resolution, but it remains 30 FPS below the playable threshold.

For 2560x1440, the best recorded average is 41 FPS at Low settings. Again, this is the top result, but it falls 19 FPS short of the 60 FPS target. Medium settings drop to 32 FPS, and High/Ultra both sit in the low 20s.

For 1920x1080, the best recorded average is 50 FPS at Low settings. This is the single highest frame rate in the entire dataset, yet it still misses the 60 FPS mark by 10 FPS. Medium settings average 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS.

In summary, Low settings at 1080p is the most demanding preset that comes closest to the playable threshold, but no configuration in the recorded data reaches 60 FPS. Users who must play at this performance level would need to consider the Low preset at 1080p as the least compromised option, accepting a 10 FPS shortfall.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 3428th out of 3714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations in the database. The rank reflects the severe GPU bottleneck: the Arc B370's 5th percentile standing among all GPUs drags down an otherwise capable CPU.

To contextualize, the CPU alone sits in the 92nd percentile of all processors, meaning it outperforms 92% of tested CPUs. The GPU, however, outperforms only 5% of tested GPUs. This 87-percentage-point gap between component percentiles is extreme and explains why the combo ranks so low overall. The recorded frame rates are consistent with a system that is limited almost entirely by graphics processing, as evidenced by the relatively small frame rate differences between resolutions when compared to the large differences between settings presets.

For comparison, a combo with this CPU paired with a mid-range GPU would likely rank far higher, as the CPU has ample headroom. But as measured, this specific pairing is one of the weaker configurations in the database for this game.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck at every resolution. Consider the scaling from 1080p to 4K at Low settings: 50 FPS at 1080p drops to 41 FPS at 1440p, then 30 FPS at 4K. This is a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is substantial but not as large as the reduction seen when raising settings at a fixed resolution.

At 1080p, raising settings from Low to Ultra reduces the average from 50 FPS to 28 FPS, a 44% drop. At 1440p, the same settings change reduces from 41 FPS to 23 FPS, a 44% drop. At 4K, it goes from 30 FPS to 17 FPS, a 43% drop. The consistency of these percentages across resolutions suggests that the GPU is saturated at all settings levels, and that the CPU is not contributing to frame rate variation.

The CPU's role becomes clearer when examining the absolute numbers. At 1080p Low, the system averages 50 FPS. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, since the CPU workload does not scale with resolution. Instead, frame rates drop steadily as resolution increases, confirming that the GPU is the constraint. The CPU's high multi-thread score (22807 in Cinebench R23) and strong single-thread score (2228) indicate it can handle the simulation's physics and scenery generation, but the Arc B370 simply cannot keep up with the rendering demands.

In practical terms, upgrading the GPU would provide the largest frame rate improvement. The CPU has enough headroom to support a significantly faster graphics card, and the recorded data shows no evidence of CPU-induced frame rate limits. For users who want to play Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS, replacing the Arc B370 with a higher-tier GPU is the clear path forward, while the Ryzen 7 9850X3D can remain in place.